Road Rage Incident in Montana

[dianaiad]

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.

Including enforcing the laws that are already on the books, rather than screaming about passing more of them, or banning them altogether.

Again.

I like the way Sweden does it.

 

[Thief]

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 drive 200+miles per week on a four lane

crazy people are among us

don't stop

get out of the way

pass semi's quickly

good luck

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

That's generally the rationale for allowing "self-defense" weapons.

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.

I'd like to see your source for that claim, but when it comes to illegal weapons: guns are somewhat unique in that the black market is entirely fed by the legal gun market. Every gun used in crime started out as a legal weapon.

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?

"Outlaws" won't - can't - ignore market forces. When guns are cheap and plentiful, they're more prevalent. Cut off the supply to the black market - which means tightening up restrictions on legal weapons - and the remaining guns on the black market will become expensive enough that the average burglar or drug dealer won't be able to afford to keep a handgun "just in case."

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

Bans on various classes of firearms have worked in other countries, but to start with, I'd just go with economic forces through mandatory insurance and tort reform.

Make every gun owner carry liability insurance and let the insurer determine the appropriate rates based on risk: choose to do risky activities like carrying in public or failing to store your firearms securely? Expect to pay for the privilege.

And for tort reform, I'd make liability follow the gun: everyone in the chain of ownership, from the manufacturer through the wholesaler and retailer through the end purchaser, would share in the liability for how that gun is used in crime unless they can demonstrate that they met all reasonable obligations.

If a gun is used in a crime, then look through its chain of ownership: if the retailer didn't take proper steps to make sure that they weren't selling to a straw buyer, then they're liable. If the distributer didn't properly check that the retailer had responsible practices, the distributor is liable. If the end user failed to securely store their guns, allowing them to be stolen and enter the black market, they're liable.

And because all of these players would have to be insured, damages could be recovered.

Overall, the idea is to make the gun industry and community pay for the societal costs of what they do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

You are not following along with the conversation. No one said that everyone would fly off the handle. The problem is that some people do. When they do they will at times take a tool of opportunity. The truck driver that started this would almost certainly not use his truck as a weapon. People like that tend to love their vehicles and they would not harm them. Remove tools of opportunity from those that would use them inappropriately and the murder rate will drop. It is not a cure all. No one claimed that. For you to try to change the argument to that is you using a strawman argument, a logical fallacy. Try to deal with what is being argued. Not with what you wish was being argued.

At least at the end of your post you demonstrated that you can be reasonable. I am not for banning guns either. I too used to hunt in my youth. Hunting rifles are very rarely used in crimes of passion. They are too unwieldy for close quarters. Handgun on the other hand lend themselves to that. Training and licensing is a must. And if a person demonstrates a violent temper then one's rights to gun use should be curtailed, at least until that person gets his or her problem taken care of.

 

[dianaiad]

That's generally the rationale for allowing "self-defense" weapons.

Do you remember...or have you heard of...the LA Riots? The ones in 1992?

I was the manager of a shoe store at the time. I did a really stupid thing. I've done a bunch of stupid things, but I think this one was top of the list. When the riots happened, the owners/managers of the little strip mall in which my store sat locked everything up and they left. Or rather, they tried to. Some of them weren't able to do so.

I didn't try. I got on the roof with my father's shotgun (which hadn't been fired in twenty years...) and just sat there, watching the rioters...none of whom had guns, btw...as they broke into all the stores in the area and looted and destroyed to their heart's content. Except, they didn't loot my store or the ones next to it. This forty something year old fat woman holding a shotgun on the roof made them say...er...not this one. I didn't shoot anybody. I didn't say anything. I just sat on the roof. Holding the gun.

But because of that experience, I really can't blithely dismiss the 'self-defense' thing, y'know? Especially since a friend of mine, who managed a 'dollar store' five stores down from me, was beaten up when she obeyed her bosses and did not resist the rioters when they came to her store. She ended up with a broken arm, nose and ribs.

The second amendment wasn't written to ensure that individuals can have guns to protect themselves against burglars, not really. It was written so ensure that we, the people, would never be entirely at the mercy of a dictatorial government. It was written to ensure that the people remained 'the government.' It was written so that someone could sit on the roof of her store and keep rioters from destroying everything.

I am not against decent and strict regulations regarding the acquisition and possession of guns. I think they should be at least as regulated as driver's licenses are. The problem is that the 'opposition' wouldn't be happy with that. They want a complete ban.

And that, given human history and what happens when a government utterly disarms it's populace, is a really lousy idea. What would be a good idea is that all those who have/own guns be rigorously screened and trained--and licensed. With requirements to renew licenses, with classes.

 

[dianaiad]

You are not following along with the conversation. No one said that everyone would fly off the handle. The problem is that some people do. When they do they will at times take a tool of opportunity. The truck driver that started this would almost certainly not use his truck as a weapon. People like that tend to love their vehicles and they would not harm them. Remove tools of opportunity from those that would use them inappropriately and the murder rate will drop. It is not a cure all. No one claimed that. For you to try to change the argument to that is you using a strawman argument, a logical fallacy. Try to deal with what is being argued. Not with what you wish was being argued.

At least at the end of your post you demonstrated that you can be reasonable. I am not for banning guns either. I too used to hunt in my youth. Hunting rifles are very rarely used in crimes of passion. They are too unwieldy for close quarters. Handgun on the other hand lend themselves to that. Training and licensing is a must. And if a person demonstrates a violent temper then one's rights to gun use should be curtailed, at least until that person gets his or her problem taken care of.

I AM following the conversation. I am simply refusing to allow it to be taken off target. I don't have a problem with requiring far stricter screening and training than we have.

But I am also quite aware that only those who are responsible will get that training and that licensing, and that those who are more likely to commit those crimes will get guns however they may....and if not guns, then something else.

The gangs around here are armed to the teeth. With knives.