Road Rage Incident in Montana

[Ellen Brown]

Montana shootings leave 1 dead, trooper and 2 others wounded



The state trooper is in critical condition. He was shot some 10 miles away outside a bar where the perpetrator's truck was sighted.



I'll admit that I sometimes get angry and frustrated while driving in traffic, but it always amazes me when people take it to this level. It's like some drivers think "This road is mine. MINE! Anyone who gets in my way is dead!"

I've heard it said that a person's "real" personality comes out when they're driving, as if people switch to berzerker mode when they get behind the wheel of a car.

One has to develop a survival instinct on the road, drive defensively, and be able to spot and avoid the real lunatics out there. Be safe.

I was on Oregon Route 97, somewhere around Chemult, when I pulled onto the road, South bound. There was a Trucker about a mile North of me when I did it. I quickly accelerated to 65+ Mph, and when I looked in the mirror the Trucker was very close to me. He must have been going +100 MPH? At the first opportunity, I got off the road to let him pass. He stopped. His truck was fixed up to look very fancy and daemonic. After playing cat and mouse for another 20 miles, I finally lost him by heading North and getting on Rt 58 to go back to Portland. I'm not sure what his issue was. He should not have been behind the wheel.

 

[Stevicus]

I was on Oregon Route 97, somewhere around Chemult, when I pulled onto the road, South bound. There was a Trucker about a mile North of me when I did it. I quickly accelerated to 65+ Mph, and when I looked in the mirror the Trucker was very close to me. He must have been going +100 MPH? At the first opportunity, I got off the road to let him pass. He stopped. His truck was fixed up to look very fancy and daemonic. After playing cat and mouse for another 20 miles, I finally lost him by heading North and getting on Rt 58 to go back to Portland. I'm not sure what his issue was. He should not have been behind the wheel.

I'm glad you got out of that situation safely. That guy sounds like a lunatic. Did his truck have any kind of company name on it?

I once saw a traffic video in which they advised people to go to the nearest police station if you're threatened by road rage, although if you're out in the middle of nowhere, they may take a while.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was on Oregon Route 97, somewhere around Chemult, when I pulled onto the road, South bound. There was a Trucker about a mile North of me when I did it. I quickly accelerated to 65+ Mph, and when I looked in the mirror the Trucker was very close to me. He must have been going +100 MPH? At the first opportunity, I got off the road to let him pass. He stopped. His truck was fixed up to look very fancy and daemonic. After playing cat and mouse for another 20 miles, I finally lost him by heading North and getting on Rt 58 to go back to Portland. I'm not sure what his issue was. He should not have been behind the wheel.

Was it a real trucker (18 wheels or more) or some thug in a pickup truck?

Btw, have you ever seen this movie?

 

[PureX]

Really, it's a very sad phenomena. Many lives have been lost and ruined by people who could not control their reactions to their own anger.

And it's not just on the roads. Countless lives have been taken in a moment of rage over the someone's perception of being "disrespected" by someone else, which I think is a very similar phenomena. And as so many of us have come to feel more and more disregarded and imperiled by corrupt government officials, by giant business conglomerates that treat is like their wage slaves and money pumps, and by media echo-chambers that amplify our worst and most violent and contentious inclinations, we will be seeing more and more of this sort of thing as time goes on.

 

[dianaiad]

You don't get it. He gunned down the people, killing one of the women. If he didn't have a gun, they likely would still be alive.

yes. I get it. If he hadn't had a gun, he would just as likely have knifed them or used a tire iron on them. This is what usually happens when road rage gets that bad.

Taking away the gun wouldn't have stopped him from killing someone.

What I do NOT get is this knee jerk reaction some have to every single violent action in which a gun plays a part, claiming somehow that if only guns were removed, then all would be fruitcake and candy. The fact is, MOST road rage incidents do not involve guns. they involve tempers, and vehicles...which are as lethal as any gun. Automatically going into 'let's get rid of the GUNS" every time is trivializing the incident and the real motive behind the violence.

It's a one trick pony. What will you all cry if all the guns are taken away from everybody, and....road rage still happens? When people still murder other people? When instead of shooting someone, the guy in a rage simply runs someone over?

It's not the gun that is the problem. It's the guy holding it, and HE would still be murderous if all he had in his hand was a baseball bat and a dog leash. Or nothing at all.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

yes. I get it. If he hadn't had a gun, he would just as likely have knifed them or used a tire iron on them. This is what usually happens when road rage gets that bad.

Taking away the gun wouldn't have stopped him from killing someone.

What I do NOT get is this knee jerk reaction some have to every single violent action in which a gun plays a part, claiming somehow that if only guns were removed, then all would be fruitcake and candy. The fact is, MOST road rage incidents do not involve guns. they involve tempers, and vehicles...which are as lethal as any gun. Automatically going into 'let's get rid of the GUNS" every time is trivializing the incident and the real motive behind the violence.

It's a one trick pony. What will you all cry if all the guns are taken away from everybody, and....road rage still happens? When people still murder other people? When instead of shooting someone, the guy in a rage simply runs someone over?

It's not the gun that is the problem. It's the guy holding it, and HE would still be murderous if all he had in his hand was a baseball bat and a dog leash. Or nothing at all.

Yes, because tire irons and knives are just as deadly as guns. 49 people were stabbed to death the other day in a mass stabbing. So tragic.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, because tire irons and knives are just as deadly as guns. 49 people were stabbed to death the other day in a mass stabbing. So tragic.

I suppose that the sarin attacks were just wonderful because no guns were used. There weren't any guns in the 9/11 planes...just box cutters. Gun control worked so well there. The 31 people and hundreds more injured in Kunming, China--with knives. 500 people butchered near Jos, Nigeria...knives.

THIS one I am really familiar with; Quartz Hill is just half a town over from me: raided his ex wife's house, killing her, two of their kids and another relative; samarai sword and baseball bat.

Colorado Springs...two families: three adults, three small children. Axe handle.

Of course, there is the Guyana Jim Jones kool-aid thing....912.

22 people killed in Bangkok, Thailand; pipe bomb.

Boston Marathon: pressure cooker bombs.

Timothy McVeigh and a federal building in Oklahoma; Ryder truck and fertilyzer. 168 people dead.

Bath Consolidated School, Michigan; 45 teachers and children. dynamite.

Happy Land social club, Brooklyn. 87 people burned and/or suffocated to death. Guy set the place on fire.

Daegu, South Korea. 133 dead. gasoline and a lighter.


I'm sure you think that taking guns away from everybody would have prevented the above. In fact, taking guns away from everybody would simply have caused more of the above, because people who want to go do this sort of thing will figure out a way to go do this sort of thing.

By focusing only on guns, you are ignoring the actual cause of stuff like this. You are, IMO, allowing your personal animus to blind you to the real problems....which are the reasons people use weapons. If you don't do that, if you focus only on the weapons, all you will get is people changing weapons.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I suppose that the sarin attacks were just wonderful because no guns were used. There weren't any guns in the 9/11 planes...just box cutters. Gun control worked so well there. The 31 people and hundreds more injured in Kunming, China--with knives. 500 people butchered near Jos, Nigeria...knives.

THIS one I am really familiar with; Quartz Hill is just half a town over from me: raided his ex wife's house, killing her, two of their kids and another relative; samarai sword and baseball bat.

Colorado Springs...two families: three adults, three small children. Axe handle.

Of course, there is the Guyana Jim Jones kool-aid thing....912.

22 people killed in Bangkok, Thailand; pipe bomb.

Boston Marathon: pressure cooker bombs.

Timothy McVeigh and a federal building in Oklahoma; Ryder truck and fertilyzer. 168 people dead.

Bath Consolidated School, Michigan; 45 teachers and children. dynamite.

Happy Land social club, Brooklyn. 87 people burned and/or suffocated to death. Guy set the place on fire.

Daegu, South Korea. 133 dead. gasoline and a lighter.


I'm sure you think that taking guns away from everybody would have prevented the above. In fact, taking guns away from everybody would simply have caused more of the above, because people who want to go do this sort of thing will figure out a way to go do this sort of thing.

By focusing only on guns, you are ignoring the actual cause of stuff like this. You are, IMO, allowing your personal animus to blind you to the real problems....which are the reasons people use weapons. If you don't do that, if you focus only on the weapons, all you will get is people changing weapons.

Guns are obviously much deadlier weapons than knives or blunt objects. Period. I will not argue about a basic fact with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose that the sarin attacks were just wonderful because no guns were used. There weren't any guns in the 9/11 planes...just box cutters. Gun control worked so well there. The 31 people and hundreds more injured in Kunming, China--with knives. 500 people butchered near Jos, Nigeria...knives.

THIS one I am really familiar with; Quartz Hill is just half a town over from me: raided his ex wife's house, killing her, two of their kids and another relative; samarai sword and baseball bat.

Colorado Springs...two families: three adults, three small children. Axe handle.

Of course, there is the Guyana Jim Jones kool-aid thing....912.

22 people killed in Bangkok, Thailand; pipe bomb.

Boston Marathon: pressure cooker bombs.

Timothy McVeigh and a federal building in Oklahoma; Ryder truck and fertilyzer. 168 people dead.

Bath Consolidated School, Michigan; 45 teachers and children. dynamite.

Happy Land social club, Brooklyn. 87 people burned and/or suffocated to death. Guy set the place on fire.

Daegu, South Korea. 133 dead. gasoline and a lighter.


I'm sure you think that taking guns away from everybody would have prevented the above. In fact, taking guns away from everybody would simply have caused more of the above, because people who want to go do this sort of thing will figure out a way to go do this sort of thing.

By focusing only on guns, you are ignoring the actual cause of stuff like this. You are, IMO, allowing your personal animus to blind you to the real problems....which are the reasons people use weapons. If you don't do that, if you focus only on the weapons, all you will get is people changing weapons.

Not always. Guns are weapons of opportunity. Granted crazies and those planning murders will still exist, but you won't have loons flying off the handle and shooting from their pickup trucks.

 

[dianaiad]

Guns are obviously much deadlier weapons than knives or blunt objects. Period. I will not argue about a basic fact with you.

How much deadlier is, er, dead?

My point is that people who wish to kill someone will find a weapon that will do it. Taking the guns away will not fix that problem.

Reacting with an automatic knee jerk "LET'S GET RID OF THE GUNS!" to every single incident of violence is short sighted. This thread is about road rage. The problem to address is road rage. The vast majority of people who experience road rage don't encounter guns.

That is also a basic fact that you seem to ignore.

Oh, and yes, guns are deadly weapons. The solution isn't to make sure that the populace is unarmed. It is to make certain that those who have guns have been trained to use them safely, are screened so that they can be trusted with them (someone with a psychological bent towards road rage shouldn't have one, for instance) .

But you are advocating disarming the public completely, are you not?

THAT idea scares me spitless, frankly.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Was it a real trucker (18 wheels or more) or some thug in a pickup truck?

Btw, have you ever seen this movie?

It was a huge semi, long box. He might have been empty, as fast as he was going?

Yes, I saw the movie and have never looked at trucks the same way since.

 

[Revoltingest]

It was a huge semi, long box. He might have been empty, as fast as he was going?

Yes, I saw the movie and have never looked at trucks the same way since.

Tis good you survived.
Anger on the road can be deadly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

yes. I get it. If he hadn't had a gun, he would just as likely have knifed them or used a tire iron on them. This is what usually happens when road rage gets that bad.

Taking away the gun wouldn't have stopped him from killing someone.

What I do NOT get is this knee jerk reaction some have to every single violent action in which a gun plays a part, claiming somehow that if only guns were removed, then all would be fruitcake and candy. The fact is, MOST road rage incidents do not involve guns. they involve tempers, and vehicles...which are as lethal as any gun. Automatically going into 'let's get rid of the GUNS" every time is trivializing the incident and the real motive behind the violence.

It's a one trick pony. What will you all cry if all the guns are taken away from everybody, and....road rage still happens? When people still murder other people? When instead of shooting someone, the guy in a rage simply runs someone over?

It's not the gun that is the problem. It's the guy holding it, and HE would still be murderous if all he had in his hand was a baseball bat and a dog leash. Or nothing at all.

I always wonder if anti-gun control people understand the contradiction when they simultaneously argue:

- people are just as able to use deadly force without a gun as with it.
- they need their gun because they wouldn't be able to use deadly force when they "need" to without it.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Just one piece of the cost of having an armed citizenry.

... but I'm sure the anti-gun control types here will claim that this has nothing to do with them.

Well obviously, because [mandatory overwrought pro-gun PRATT talking point][/]

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I always wonder if anti-gun control people understand the contradiction when they simultaneously argue:

- people are just as able to use deadly force without a gun as with it.
- they need their gun because they wouldn't be able to use deadly force when they "need" to without it.

Right up there with believing:

"I need my gun to protect myself from government tyranny"
"the military would side with us anyway in the case of armed revolt"

simultaneously.

 

[Revoltingest]

Right up there with believing:

"I need my gun to protect myself from government tyranny"
"the military would side with us anyway in the case of armed revolt"

simultaneously.

I want in on the fun!
The alternative....
"Guns are scary. Only government should have them."
"We can trust them to use complete power over us to keep us safe."
"Once everyone turns in all their no guns, all danger will be gone."
"If there are any bad guys, we can use whistles or karate for self defense."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

How much deadlier is, er, dead?

My point is that people who wish to kill someone will find a weapon that will do it. Taking the guns away will not fix that problem.

Reacting with an automatic knee jerk "LET'S GET RID OF THE GUNS!" to every single incident of violence is short sighted. This thread is about road rage. The problem to address is road rage. The vast majority of people who experience road rage don't encounter guns.

That is also a basic fact that you seem to ignore.

Oh, and yes, guns are deadly weapons. The solution isn't to make sure that the populace is unarmed. It is to make certain that those who have guns have been trained to use them safely, are screened so that they can be trusted with them (someone with a psychological bent towards road rage shouldn't have one, for instance) .

But you are advocating disarming the public completely, are you not?

THAT idea scares me spitless, frankly.

I'm saying that it's obviously a lot easier to kill someone with an AR-15 than it is with a knife or a bat. Clear enough for you?

I wouldn't protest if handguns and semiautomatic rifles are banned since those are entirely unnecessary but I do definitely do want better gun control laws. Bump slides and things like that should definitely be banned. We need to make it easier for the various systems to communicate so that those who shouldn't have weapons don't fall through the cracks. Enforce waiting times, psychological testing, training, licensing, mandate that they be locked up at all times when not in use, etc. There's a lot of things that could be done without a ban.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How much deadlier is, er, dead?

My point is that people who wish to kill someone will find a weapon that will do it. Taking the guns away will not fix that problem.

Reacting with an automatic knee jerk "LET'S GET RID OF THE GUNS!" to every single incident of violence is short sighted. This thread is about road rage. The problem to address is road rage. The vast majority of people who experience road rage don't encounter guns.

The problem is the fatalities and injuries. Both the gun and the road rage were key factors.

I find it interesting that just asking the question of whether having guns is worth the societal cost gets interpreted as a call to ban guns. You seem to be tipping your hand that you think the answer will end up being "no."

That is also a basic fact that you seem to ignore.

Oh, and yes, guns are deadly weapons. The solution isn't to make sure that the populace is unarmed. It is to make certain that those who have guns have been trained to use them safely, are screened so that they can be trusted with them (someone with a psychological bent towards road rage shouldn't have one, for instance) .

Do you have a way to screen out people "with a psychological bent towards road rage?"

 

[dianaiad]

I always wonder if anti-gun control people understand the contradiction when they simultaneously argue:

- people are just as able to use deadly force without a gun as with it.
- they need their gun because they wouldn't be able to use deadly force when they "need" to without it.

You didn't see me argue the second point now, did you?

However, I will say that the cliche' of 'when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" does have a point to it. I will also say this: when one looks at the incidents of gun violence, it turns out that a huge percentage of them are committed by people who are illegally in possession of those guns.

So what would you do next: since in a very large number of cases (almost all of them, actually) the shooter is already breaking gun control laws that are on the books, what would you suggest we do? Pass more laws that the 'outlaws' will completely ignore?

Send the army out to collect all the guns...at, er, gunpoint?

 

[dianaiad]

Not always. Guns are weapons of opportunity. Granted crazies and those planning murders will still exist, but you won't have loons flying off the handle and shooting from their pickup trucks.

Really?

When I was a teenager, I was also a hunter. Never used a gun, but I had a beautiful recurved composite hunting bow. Dad not only had a bow (more than one) he also had a crossbow. My brother was an expert in throwing knives. Now, none of us were of the mind to 'fly off the handle' and use them from a pickup truck, but we certainly could have. We didn't....because we weren't the types to do that either with bows or guns.

the type to do that would do that whatever weapon they happen to have at hand.

I'm not claiming that guns are not lethal. I am SAYING that getting rid of the guns won't solve the basic problem.

I like the way Sweden does things. I'm all for making anybody who obtains a gun go through strict training, get a license, etc.

I especially like the 'strict training' thing, to the point that a prospective gun owner has to have been a member of a 'gun club' for half a year, show the training, get the certificates, and prove that s/he knows how to deal with gun safety. If we did that, we would not only have the protection afforded to us by the constitution, we'd have TRAINED gun owners who actually know just how dangerous those things are, and which end points out.