Z4 driver shot and killed another driver over road rage

[papitosabe]

Originally Posted by gas-can

I feel like that a lot of this type of gun violence stems from the substandard mental health services that you have in this country.

or substandard prescription drug laws. A growing number of kids have been prescribed all kinds of mental drugs from an early age if they have any type of "behavioral problems." Physical education has been pulled from many schools, and kids play Xbox instead of playing outside to release the hyperactiveness from all the chemically laced foods that they eat.

[chickdr]

Originally Posted by SD Z4MR

Weapons laws vary by state. According to a pamphlet by opencarry.org, in Washington state it is illegal to carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle without a CPL:

"A person may carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle only if they have a valid CPL. Those without a valid CPL may carry a firearm in a vehicle only if the firearm is unloaded and not concealed in any way on the body. (RCW 9.41.050)"

Bowman had a CPL and it was legal for him to carry his loaded 9mm in his car. If he didn't have a CPL this would have been illegal, and arguably, he wouldn't have been carrying his loaded 9mm in his car, being otherwise an apparently law-abiding citizen.

Which is why I said "it depends"....

Increasing regulations rarely achieves its intended purpose in my experience.

Again- you are not going to magically erase these types of incidents by adding a bunch of laws restricting guns. These things happen far more frequently with criminals than "regular joe citizens". I am quite certain the number of criminal deaths by CCW holders is infinitesimally small.

And yes Loogey, I see some crazy drivers out there who need retesting. I don't have an issue with adding some extra regs for CCW renewal such as a statement you must check saying you have not had any mental health related issues since your last CCW permit was issued. What I don't want to see is something which makes me do this before my current permit expires. They had to do a background check and fingerprints before giving it to me last time....

[johanness]

Yah, we'd hate to inconvenience things for folks running around with concealed weapons.

What's a simple inconvenience to a law-abiding gun enthusiast (retesting etc)... may serve as a huge deterrent to a criminal. So there's merit to this argument IMO

[dreamingat30fps]

This has been debated ad nauseum on another forum I visit. The main issue I see with both sides is neither has been able to present hard evidence to back their views. All the gun statistics I have seen show no significant effect on gun related deaths when new gun regulations are introduced. Some may argue when new regulations are introduce gun crime goes up, but I have also not seen any charts that show this. I'm not saying there aren't any, I have just not seen them and no one on the forums seems to be able to find them either.

What most people do is try to compare the US to other countries, however in my opinion that logic is flawed. People in other countries have completely different values, traditions, up bringing, etc. Which would, in my opinion, skew any results from such comparisons.

Now if I were to guess. Meaning I would not actually want any actual laws to be made based on this opinion I'm pulling out my ass. I think the only way gun control would work is to eliminate ALL guns in the US. No new guns and all currently owned guns would have to be removed. However I do not see that as feasible in this country. All other efforts like banning "assault" weapons large magazines etc all seem to simply be feel good measures that would have no significant effect on the issue.

[David70]

Does anyone here know why anyone, either for protection or for hunting needs an assault rifle and/or more than a 10 round magazine?

Same question above for a reason to own more than 2 handguns?

As for the "you can't compare us to anyone else because we are different", if all of the developed world does something better than we do (not get injured or killed by guns at even close to the same rate) wouldn't a logical step be to consider doing some of the things they do? Not comparing us to one country but every other developed country.

If a company/university/city found that everyone of their 40 competitors did some function better than they did they would consider doing some of the things that the other do. It's logical thinking. I can only imagine someone saying in a meeting that "no comparison, all of those companies are different than us" and ending the meeting.

One other thing, recently the NRA membership "surged" to 4.2 million members. With this being less than 2% of the population, besides money, why are they so important?

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by David70

Does anyone here know why anyone, either for protection or for hunting needs an assault rifle and/or more than a 10 round magazine?

Same question above for a reason to own more than 2 handguns?

As for the "you can't compare us to anyone else because we are different", if all of the developed world does something better than we do (not get injured or killed by guns at even close to the same rate) wouldn't a logical step be to consider doing some of the things they do? Not comparing us to one country but every other developed country.

If a company/university/city found that everyone of their 40 competitors did some function better than they did they would consider doing some of the things that the other do. It's logical thinking. I can only imagine someone saying in a meeting that "no comparison, all of those companies are different than us" and ending the meeting.

One other thing, recently the NRA membership "surged" to 4.2 million members. With this being less than 2% of the population, besides money, why are they so important?

You may be right I don't know. The thing is you are the one looking to curtail certain freedoms we now have, so imo the burden of proof is on you to prove that doing so will achieve the desired result.

As for the business analogy that could easily work the other way. I'm sure there are many best practices that would certainly not work in specific industries because of the nature of that industry while others may be compatible.

I would personally go as far as agreeing to ban "assault" weapons or large magazine if and only if after a certain period of time we look at the data to determined if it had any significant effect. If not the bans are removed. Good luck having that happen though.

[thekurgan]

Originally Posted by David70

Does anyone here know why anyone, either for protection or for hunting needs an assault rifle and/or more than a 10 round magazine?

Same question above for a reason to own more than 2 handguns?

For both my AR-15 and AKs, I've always had 20-30 round magazines, I don't think it's more of a "need", but weapons like these do have a purpose in the field. Limiting to 10 rounds in combat would be silly. Civilians own them both for sport and protection, limiting the capacity is just a feel good.

As for more than 2 handguns, why not have multiple calibers for occasions/sport/protection. For carry, I want a small caliber in a small weapon that I can conceal easily and yet shoot with my off hand.

All these laws attacking the weapons and feeding mechanisms is just pointless in a society allowing crazy people to obtain them. They are just a tool wich which to destruct. Gasoline and ivory soap is a great killer combination and I doubt those will be banned. One of the thing that separates humans from other animals is the ability and desire to kill from a distance; guns are but one way to accomplish that, crossbows, blow guns, throwing knives, etc. are also nasty.

[itdnwiwbp]

I'm no expert on gun violence statistics either here or abroad so I'm not trying to enter the discussion or push my opinions. I see many good points on both sides but I don't see legislation as the answer. The article I'm going to link to here is about a topic that I rarely see discussed in debates such as these - the original reason for the 2nd amendment. This is a very old article but I believe it accurately describes the purpose. I won't bother to paraphrase. Here it is: http://www.wnd.com/1998/08/5248/.

[David70]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

You may be right I don't know. The thing is you are the one looking to curtail certain freedoms we now have, so imo the burden of proof is on you to prove that doing so will achieve the desired result.

As for the business analogy that could easily work the other way. I'm sure there are many best practices that would certainly not work in specific industries because of the nature of that industry while others may be compatible.

I would personally go as far as agreeing to ban "assault" weapons or large magazine if and only if after a certain period of time we look at the data to determined if it had any significant effect. If not the bans are removed. Good luck having that happen though.

Many decisions in both private and public sector are made because we aren't happy with the current system and are willing to try something new. You can require proof before changing your mind but it isn't required for everyone else. I don't see putting some restrictions on types of guns or numbers of guns making things worse so I am willing to give it a try.

If companies waited to prove everything they did before they made a change many wouldn't be around, they take the information given and make their best decision. If it doesn't work out they go to plan B. If banning assault weapons and limiting magazine capacity makes crime go up I would say it is a bad decision but I read far more incidents where this type of weapon is used to commit the crime than for someone to end or prevent the crime. Please post any real data that shows it is decreasing crime and I may change my mind.

[David70]

One other thing. The "we need to stop crazy people from buying guns" at this point is basically worthless. Yes, I believe everyone agrees with this but without a decent plan to make this happen it doesn't mean much. I guess we also need to have better education, become more efficient, cut out waste, etc. Pretty much what every politician talks about but can't figure out how to implement.

[KLH]

Is there truly a solution when so much logic and emotion surround this issue? It saddens/concerns me to think this guy might get off with what amounts to a slap on the wrist. The final outcome will be interesting to say the least. The shooter defnitely picked the wrong time to shoot someone.

[Twisted Six]

Originally Posted by David70

One other thing. The "we need to stop crazy people from buying guns" at this point is basically worthless. Yes, I believe everyone agrees with this but without a decent plan to make this happen it doesn't mean much. I guess we also need to have better education, become more efficient, cut out waste, etc. Pretty much what every politician talks about but can't figure out how to implement.

In the Ct. case, the mother evidently did not have her firearms properly locked up or concealed well enough that her disturbed son found them easily and made his doom.That mistake began with poor ownership and responsibility with this case. Child with issues....parent being irresponsible.Bad combo.

This BMW driver was also a bad combo. Wife ignoring his rage control signs. Gun owner who did not show signs of poor self control when applying for his CCW.

There of course will be hundreds of these tough to cover scenarios.

I for one feel if a person wishes to possess multiple guns with large capacity they simply need to prove a few things first.
1)-Ability to safely store the weapons and ammo out of the wrong hands.
2)-A thorough Pysch review along with peers interviews.

Can't pass these two....do not pass go.

CCW's perhaps a similar method but more designed for real world scenarios and lifestyle.

The bad thing about these proposals is if they are improperly worded simply to curtail any and everyone from keeping themselves armed.

I would like some measurable stiffness put in place to catch the mentally/spiritually unstable folks in check. I think we all know someone who shouldn't own a drivers license let alone a firearm.

[thekurgan]

Originally Posted by David70

One other thing. The "we need to stop crazy people from buying guns" at this point is basically worthless. Yes, I believe everyone agrees with this but without a decent plan to make this happen it doesn't mean much. I guess we also need to have better education, become more efficient, cut out waste, etc. Pretty much what every politician talks about but can't figure out how to implement.

I would think it easier to control future purchases than to selectively remove existing weapons.

[pokeybritches]

Originally Posted by David70

Does anyone here know why anyone, either for protection or for hunting needs an assault rifle and/or more than a 10 round magazine?

Yes, and it's why the second amendment exists - the government needs to fear its people, to keep it in check and to continue to work for the people. The second amendment doesn't exist to protect hunting rifles or even self defense measures. It's there to protect people from the government. Each of these seemingly small measures - banning high capacity magazines, requiring registration so they know exactly who has what, and making it increasingly difficult to buy guns so that less people do it.... all are there to disarm the population under the pretense of "safety".

Think our government (or any government) won't go and slaughter innocent people, after it disarms them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre

That was 120 years ago.

[papitosabe]

Originally Posted by David70

Does anyone here know why anyone, either for protection or for hunting needs an assault rifle and/or more than a 10 round magazine?

Same question above for a reason to own more than 2 handguns?

what pokey said... basically look at how things are going...we have indefinite detention of americans now withouth representation, we have warrantless search and seizures, we have border patrol checkpoints outside of the border, we have random dwi stops/checkpoints, curfews have been previously done, we have traffic cameras everywhere, we're able to be spied on internet usage, words entered, etc; our phones can be used as mics even if our phones aren't being used, and bill HR658 is allowing 30,000 drones to patrol US airways... our dollar is on a path to inevitable devaluation, and if we lose our guns, if our next few generations feel the need to revolt or resist gov't tyranny, they won't be able to because of all the conditioning of conforming to the loss of our rights and liberties....

there are currently tyrannical gov'ts out there now ,and the British initially came over here to take our guns away, so its not too far fetched to think its a possibility that gov't become tyrannical...again, maybe its not a problem for you and I or our kids, but it could be an issue for our grandkids, and their kids... Incrementalism

Originally Posted by pokeybritches

Yes, and it's why the second amendment exists - the government needs to fear its people, to keep it in check and to continue to work for the people. The second amendment doesn't exist to protect hunting rifles or even self defense measures. It's there to protect people from the government. Each of these seemingly small measures - banning high capacity magazines, requiring registration so they know exactly who has what, and making it increasingly difficult to buy guns so that less people do it.... all are there to disarm the population under the pretense of "safety"...

Think our government (or any government) won't go and slaughter innocent people, after it disarms them?

[chickdr]

Originally Posted by johanness

Yah, we'd hate to inconvenience things for folks running around with concealed weapons.

What's a simple inconvenience to a law-abiding gun enthusiast (retesting etc)... may serve as a huge deterrent to a criminal. So there's merit to this argument IMO

I must assume, perhaps incorrectly, you are not a gun owner?

Very easy for you to support controls which will have no effect on you.

I have to ask- do you really believe this type of legislation will curtail criminals? If so how? They don't use legal channels to obtain guns so these regs will have no effect whatsoever.

The mother of the kid who was involved in the shootings is being raked over the coals for not having the guns locked up. I hear this kind of thing all the time, but if guns are locked up and unloaded, what use are they if someone suddenly breaks into your home? Guns are used for defense and aren't any good without ammunition in the clip.

Let me throw one other thing out into the fray since this is a car board. What if the government suddenly decided to limit horsepower on cars? Do I really NEED a 330hp sports car to drive the 9 miles of city streets I predominantly use it for? Doesn't this encourage reckless speeding and dangerous driving? If our E85/86's had 75hp instead of 170-330hp and were governed to 55mph wouldn't it be arguably "safer" as we couldn't so easily get our cars out of control? How does this sound to you?

[bosstones]

Magazine...not clip. Also, secure storage is a duty for responsible gun ownership IMHO. It is, however, a fine line between safety of others and accessibility in a time of need. There is also the scenario of a break-in when no one is home until after said perpetrator(s) are already inside. Would you want them to find your loaded gun? Just playing devil's advocate here.

On a different note, I see nothing wrong with requiring a background check for all (mainly to include private party and gun shows) firearms purchases. The back channel to the ineligibles/felons/insane/etc... has to be mitigated. It wouldn't by any means be a perfect solution, but the common/everyday person might give more thought than to make a purchase for someone else. A crackdown of FFLs that are voluntarily involved (i.e. direct sales to ineligibles) with such shady dealings is also needed.

Aside from that, incorporating biometrics is not a good solution as brought up by VP Biden. The technology is not fool proof. Re-instituting the 1994 ban will not do much as the people problem would still be present. The #'s touted by gun control activists regarding the effectivity of it do not mention the part where the study admits that the percentage/amount is not conclusive and can be within the margin of error. Also, a # of the ramp ups in gun violence in some of the charts I've seen coincide with large scale or escalating economic hardships. One thing to note, too, is that the crazy/criminals will always find a way. Ban the AR platforms because they look militaristic and more accurate rifles that look 'traditional' but fire the same caliber can be used.

An outright ban on rifles and handguns is also not a good solution. Crime always finds a way and removing firearms from responsible owners does nothing to solve that issue. It would also have economic impacts as well on manufacturers, gun shops, and gun ranges. Plus, there would likely be class action lawsuits seeking just compensation by citizen firearms owners who purchased their wares during times of legality.

There are things that can be done to mitigate the issue, but the prominent voices on both sides of the equation do little to find a middle ground.

[Twisted Six]

Originally Posted by bosstones

Magazine...not clip. Also, secure storage is a duty for responsible gun ownership IMHO. It is, however, a fine line between safety of others and accessibility in a time of need. There is also the scenario of a break-in when no one is home until after said perpetrator(s) are already inside. Would you want them to find your loaded gun? Just playing devil's advocate here.

On a different note, I see nothing wrong with requiring a background check for all (mainly to include private party and gun shows) firearms purchases. The back channel to the ineligibles/felons/insane/etc... has to be mitigated. It wouldn't by any means be a perfect solution, but the common/everyday person might give more thought than to make a purchase for someone else. A crackdown of FFLs that are voluntarily involved (i.e. direct sales to ineligibles) with such shady dealings is also needed.

Aside from that, incorporating biometrics is not a good solution as brought up by VP Biden. The technology is not fool proof. Re-instituting the 1994 ban will not do much as the people problem would still be present. The #'s touted by gun control activists regarding the effectivity of it do not mention the part where the study admits that the percentage/amount is not conclusive and can be within the margin of error. Also, a # of the ramp ups in gun violence in some of the charts I've seen coincide with large scale or escalating economic hardships. One thing to note, too, is that the crazy/criminals will always find a way. Ban the AR platforms because they look militaristic and more accurate rifles that look 'traditional' but fire the same caliber can be used.

An outright ban on rifles and handguns is also not a good solution. Crime always finds a way and removing firearms from responsible owners does nothing to solve that issue. It would also have economic impacts as well on manufacturers, gun shops, and gun ranges. Plus, there would likely be class action lawsuits seeking just compensation by citizen firearms owners who purchased their wares during times of legality.

There are things that can be done to mitigate the issue, but the prominent voices on both sides of the equation do little to find a middle ground.

One odd thought that occurred to me if a gun ban were to occur and people had to surrender their arms and afterwards DO get home raided ,killed,maimed or just tied up and robbed......would there be lawsuits arising from survivors , no longer being able to readily defend themselves ?

My elderly parents with all their bone and health issues would be sitting ducks and would feel like it as well. Their neighborhood was recently targeted by home invaders and a retired couple behind them stayed off would be thieves with a cannon of a Desert Eagle pointed at them at 3:00 a.m.

No one injured and no one robbed. How many of these types of incidents are never reported to the police or media to sway the public's minds ? I'd say most.

[johanness]

Originally Posted by chickdr

I must assume, perhaps incorrectly, you are not a gun owner?

Nope. As a dual citizen, I choose to honor Canadian laws as they pertain to this subject (plus I live in Vancouver and they'd cart my ass off to jail if I got stopped with a concealed weapon).

Originally Posted by chickdr

What if the government suddenly decided to limit horsepower on cars? Do I really NEED a 330hp sports car to drive the 9 miles of city streets I predominantly use it for? Doesn't this encourage reckless speeding and dangerous driving? If our E85/86's had 75hp instead of 170-330hp and were governed to 55mph wouldn't it be arguably "safer" as we couldn't so easily get our cars out of control? How does this sound to you?

Really? That's along the same vane as a 5yr old saying "Well, if you never were born, it wouldn't have happened". I'm not sure how many people are running around deliberately using their cars as weapons either (compared to shooting deaths that is).
I wonder if Keith Ratliff's opinion would have changed if he were still with us? I'm saying PERHAPS there should be some form of retesting or at the very least mental health checks so that psychos aren't allowed to run around with assault rifles, and that it may provide an additional deterrent. Sounds outlandish right?
It's much like if you're going to rent your house out. You'll more than likely ask the potential tenant to fill out a form, and maybe do a credit check etc. Or maybe it makes more sense just to blindly hand them the keys and say 'enjoy the place'?

Originally Posted by KLH

Is there truly a solution when so much logic and emotion surround this issue?

This.

[SD ///M4]

Ok, back to the facts of the case...

A King County judge today set bail of $10 million, 10 times the amount that the defense had requested. No reports yet as to whether he has posted bail or not, although prosecutors believe that he will not be able to post the high bail.

In a defense memorandum by one of the killer's attorney, they stated "The State has not and cannot show by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Bowman has a propensity for violence and that he presents a substantial likelihood of danger to the community.". Well, except for the fact that he shot a complete stranger three times in the head as he sat in his car. So other than that.

[itdnwiwbp]

Originally Posted by SD Z4MR

In a defense memorandum by one of the killer's attorney, they stated "The State has not and cannot show by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Bowman has a propensity for violence and that he presents a substantial likelihood of danger to the community.". Well, except for the fact that he shot a complete stranger three times in the head as he sat in his car. So other than that.

Yeah...that doesn't sound like a big deal it all! Lawyers...sigh...

[chickdr]

Originally Posted by johanness

Nope. As a dual citizen, I choose to honor Canadian laws as they pertain to this subject (plus I live in Vancouver and they'd cart my ass off to jail if I got stopped with a concealed weapon).



Really? That's along the same vane as a 5yr old saying "Well, if you never were born, it wouldn't have happened". I'm not sure how many people are running around deliberately using their cars as weapons either (compared to shooting deaths that is).
I wonder if Keith Ratliff's opinion would have changed if he were still with us? I'm saying PERHAPS there should be some form of retesting or at the very least mental health checks so that psychos aren't allowed to run around with assault rifles, and that it may provide an additional deterrent. Sounds outlandish right?
It's much like if you're going to rent your house out. You'll more than likely ask the potential tenant to fill out a form, and maybe do a credit check etc. Or maybe it makes more sense just to blindly hand them the keys and say 'enjoy the place'?



This.

Well there you go. If you don't own a gun why wouldn't you want others to have increased regs? It has no impact on you....

Yes, really. Cars are dangerous and cause many, many deaths each year due to negligence(just like guns). I think it makes a great analogy. You still didn't answer my question. Do we really NEED 330hp in our Z4's? But wouldn't it be outlandish for the government to restrict the power we could have?

I really don't see how you would even begin to implement the "health checks" you propose. There are many people who develop issues over time. Just because someone is stable today doesn't mean a traumatic event won't occur tomorrow and flip them over the edge. The only way to effectively stop this type of thing would be to do a wholesale ban on weapons which just isn't going to happen in the USA.