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

[Gospel]

To the NRA's purse, everyone with a gun is the good guy.

 

[Worldtraveller]

So he was allowed to get another firearm after his probationary period?

Well, Floriduh.

 

[Toni]

To the NRA's purse, everyone with a gun is the good guy.

I dunno. They’re awfully quiet when the good guy is not white.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

You don't get to choose from scenarios that don't exist.

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.

Did it occur to you that just maybe the existence of the firearms in those cars may have influenced their behavior?

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.

Saying the target was the driver does not make it so.

We don't know what this jackass meant to do. But the presence of guns made it worse.

 

[Gun Nut]

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.

You don't get to choose from scenarios that don't exist.

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.

Did it occur to you that just maybe the existence of the firearms in those cars may have influenced their behavior?

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.

 

[Enigma]

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.

You don't get to choose from scenarios that don't exist.

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.

Did it occur to you that just maybe the existence of the firearms in those cars may have influenced their behavior?

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.

Saying the target was the driver does not make it so.

We don't know what this jackass meant to do. But the presence of guns made it worse.

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

You don't get to choose from scenarios that don't exist.

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.

Did it occur to you that just maybe the existence of the firearms in those cars may have influenced their behavior?

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.

Saying the target was the driver does not make it so.

We don't know what this jackass meant to do. But the presence of guns made it worse.

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.

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.

 

[Gospel]

To the NRA's purse, everyone with a gun is the good guy.

I dunno. They’re awfully quiet when the good guy is not white.

What does it matter when a bad guy with a gun is a good thing for the NRA?

 

[Toni]

To the NRA's purse, everyone with a gun is the good guy.

I dunno. They’re awfully quiet when the good guy is not white.

What does it matter when a bad guy with a gun is a good thing for the NRA?

Shhhh! That’s the quiet part we’re not meant to notice much less say out loud.

 

[Enigma]

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".

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.

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!"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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".

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 don't know if that is true or not, but it is possible.

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.

Neither does yours. What is your point?

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?

No, it is an example of a Nazi sympathizer attacking people - not an example of road rage.

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.

Perhaps the above will stop the flow of your drivel.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

I am not employing your MO, so stop it.

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.

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.

 

[Toni]

It's still rare for gunfire to be exchanged over a traffic dust up. Fender benders and people screaming at each other is fairly common. If one believes television shows and movies, most shootings while in a motor vehicle involve gangs.

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.

The only choice or even a remotely decent choice is not to arm all citizens so they can shoot the guy who shoots at them first. We already have plenty of evidence with the number of small children who are killed in their beds or at their kitchen tables while doing their homework or watching tv who are killed by stray shots at gang members shooting at each other. And how is this different? I mean both people involved seem to be unaffiliated with any gang but they both thought of themselves as cowboys/gangsters who had the absolute reason and right to carry and fire at will. I cannot mourn Kuczwanski's death but I don't cheer for the other guy, either.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

That's where I stand. Crime of rage should be a permanent prohibition on firearms. You don't get two bites at the apple like this guy did.

 

[ZiprHead]

^^^ What LP said, 100%.

 

[Enigma]

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".

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?

Nice victim blaming there. Without even any pretense of evidentiary support.

I 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.

For example:

The Prius driver was obviously right to defend himself with all available force because it is possible the director had a deep seated bigotry against people who drive Priuses that is only exacerbated by a very rare confluence of both genetic and environmental factors (again, it is Florida) that can result in him becoming a beastly berserker who has lost all senses of ethics, morality, and restraint.

Because of this confluence of factors, if he wasn't stopped it is very well possible that he would have repeatedly rammed into the Prius until it was completely disabled then tear the driver out of the car and then proceed to kill, rape, skin, and eat the driver. Hopefully in that order.

If he wasn't stopped here, it is possible that these factors would result in him doing this to the next Prius he came across. Frankly we should be giving the Prius driver a medal for stopping this deranged madman before he could do that to anyone else who was less prepared for such an occurrence.

All that being said, 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.

Your victim-blaming is noted.

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.

Apparently, "defending yourself" is not a good reason to have a firearm in a car in civilized society (or Florida).

Given that having guns in the car for defense is morally suspect, please enlighten us as to any alternative and effective means of self-defense in this scenario that would not lead you to cast aspersions on the character of those who have/use said means.

If you believe that the Prius driver should be able to defend themselves, but that they should be barred from having any effective means of defending themselves, that is effectively a distinction without a difference.

 

[Jarhyn]

Apparently, "defending yourself" is not a good reason to have a firearm in a car in civilized society

Yes. This, but unironically.

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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".

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?

Nice victim blaming there. Without even any pretense of evidentiary support.

Straw man noted

I 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……

Like your straw man driven rants? LOL

 

[Elixir]

Apparently, "defending yourself" is not a good reason to have a firearm in a car in civilized society

Yes. This, but unironically.

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.

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.
In short, what we have is a LCC with a gun, picking a fight with someone in a Prius under the false assumption that he was the only one with a gun.
The main reason for someone who is NOT a LCC to have a gun in their car, is the existence of LCCs with guns in their cars.