Motorcyclist pulls gun in road rage incident. His target had better aim

Status
Not open for further replies.
JonDouglas said:
So, let me see if I understand this. You suggest passing stricter motorcycle laws for road rage but pass on suggesting the same for cars, which are the far greater road rage problem. Did I get that right?
Click to expand...

Keesha said:
You need to pass stricter motorcycle laws to prevent drivers from shooting each other with guns?🤔
😵‍Wow! That’s the biggest problem here?
Click to expand...
lol - My comment was just a preemptive strike against the absurdity of the usual anti-gun people wanting stricter gun laws.
 
Buckeye said:
Nice try at deflection, but none of which has to do with the incident in the OP. Contrary to your stated belief, the driver with the kids in the car had every right to defend himself and his children.
Click to expand...
Spot on, but what about the scenario when neither of them was allowed to have gun in the first place?
An angry exchange, perhaps a door kicked in but no-one died and the children don't need therapy.
 
Warrigal said:
Spot on, but what about the scenario when neither of them was allowed to have gun in the first place?
An angry exchange, perhaps a door kicked in but no-one died and the children don't need therapy.
Click to expand...
You are making an assumption that's not possible on the planet earth. You can't possibly believe that people who aren't allowed to have guns can't get guns.
 
Warrigal said:
Spot on, but what about the scenario when neither of them was allowed to have gun in the first place?
An angry exchange, perhaps a door kicked in but no-one died and the children don't need therapy.
Click to expand...
If your island shared a border with Mexico, like here, you would realize the total impossibility of this. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons, and the drug cartels would be happy to get into the gun business. Plus, we already have approx 500,000,000 guns in the US. And there's that pesky 2nd amendment thingy
 
When you ban something that people want, you can make book that it will go underground and a criminal enterprise will be formed to provide it it. You should also assume that the criminal enterprise will be worse than what it was you though you were banning. Remember prohibition and the banning of alcohol? This does, of course, apply more to the U.S. where many of us have a habit of not liking to be told what we can and cannot have or do by some government bureaucrats.
 
And there's that pesky 2nd amendment thingy
Click to expand...

And that the nub of the problem.

Banning isn't the goal. Harm reduction is, but that seems impossible because of the current interpretation of the 1791 second amendment to the US Constitution. Do you think that the words "shall not be infringed" would have been included if the people of 18th century America could have imagined the carnage that is possible today?

There were 19,379 gun violence deaths in the US in 2020, according to data from the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive. This statistic excludes suicides involving guns, which consistently account for a majority (roughly two-thirds) of annual US gun deaths. In 2020, Gun Violence Archive found there were 24,090 gun suicides.
Click to expand...
 
Warrigal said:
And that the nub of the problem.

Banning isn't the goal. Harm reduction is, but that seems impossible because of the current interpretation of the 1791 second amendment to the US Constitution. Do you think that the words "shall not be infringed" would have been included if the people of 18th century America could have imagined the carnage that is possible today?
Click to expand...
Since you're into this, try matching gun crime statistics with states/cities that have the most strict gun laws and see what that tells you, aside from the fact that criminals don't obey laws. And, while you're at it, go into the statistics on how many crimes/murders were prevented by citizens with guns.
 
The constitution is just a piece of paper. Even if it is held in the highest regard and considered the framework of our society, it only means what 5 people say it does, that being a majority of the supreme court.
 
I have to agree with Aunt Marg. Every scenario can have different outcomes. I stopped a killing & robbery in a food place many years back. The purp was at the cash register pointing a gun at the clerk. I could have shot him, but I have a red laser on my 9mm so I told him to look at that red dot on his chest, now put the gun down. He did comply & cops were there to rest him.

Now had that perp turned around & pointed the gun at me, then I would think real quick he's going to shoot me so I pull my trigger & he might just lay on the floor wounded but most training I've been through you shoot too kill not wound.

If you have a gun pointed at you what would you do? Just stand/sit there & see if he's going to pull the trigger? The guy in the van was wise to shoot first. He could have waited & the guy on the motorcycle pulls his trigger now one of his kids is dead. Better to shoot first so no one else gets killed.
 
JonDouglas said:
Since you're into this, try matching gun crime statistics with states/cities that have the most strict gun laws and see what that tells you, aside from the fact that criminals don't obey laws. And, while you're at it, go into the statistics on how many crimes/murders were prevented by citizens with guns.
Click to expand...
It makes no sense to compare gun laws and deaths/criminal behaviour between states and cities when people can just drive across state borders to acquire as many weapons as they want. Compare US stats (per capita) with Australian stats where we have uniform legislation in all states. The commonwealth controls importation from other countries.
 
Warrigal said:
It makes no sense to compare gun laws and deaths/criminal behaviour between states and cities when people can just drive across state borders to acquire as many weapons as they want. Compare US stats (per capita) with Australian stats where we have uniform legislation in all states. The commonwealth controls importation from other countries.
Click to expand...
It makes no sense to compare countries, either, given the differences in states rights. You may have noticed that not all of our states were locked down during the stupid pandemic and that most aren't now. How're y'all doing down under?
 
We're waiting on vaccine supplies. We have plenty of AstraZeneca, made under licence in Australia but need a lot more Pfizer which we have to import.

Greater Sydney and areas to the north, south and west have been under 'stay at home' orders for the past week and we have at least another week to go. Our state government was a bit too slow to act when the first cases of the delta variant was detected and it got rather out of hand. The brief lockdown is necessary to let the contact tracking find all of the community links.

Other states are not so badly affected even though infected people did travel there. They have managed with much shorter stay at home periods - just a few days rather than 2 weeks.

According to our constitution, which was modelled on the US one, all powers that are not specifically allocated to the commonwealth remain with the states. However, during WWII the states surrendered income taxation to the commonwealth and have not reclaimed it. Consequently the Feds have most of the funds and the states are allocated their shares according to some very complicated calculations. This makes the individual states beholden to the Feds and reduces their power.

When it comes to COVID, quarantine is a federal responsibility but they have shoved this onto the states. The states have been using hotels as quarantine facilities and this has not been as successful as we would like. Health is a state responsibility but aged care belongs to the commonwealth. The majority of COVID deaths have been in aged care homes but the roll out of vaccines to the residents and staff has been very slow and is still not complete.

Federal systems are much messier than centralised government.
 
win231 said:
You are making an assumption that's not possible on the planet earth. You can't possibly believe that people who aren't allowed to have guns can't get guns.
Click to expand...
Gunmen suffer from a collective inferiority complex. We can, therefore, discuss whether or not it's their own fault but the bottom line remains.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top