Well, you’ve gotta get their attention, right?
A driver, now identified as an Asheville [NC] firefighter, shot a bicycle rider because he was angry the man was riding with his child on a busy road, Asheville police said.
[…]Officers said the victim was riding with his wife and had his 3-year-old son in a child seat attached to his bicycle when a driver approached him.
Police said the driver, Charles Diez, claimed he was upset that the victim was bike riding with his child on the heavily traveled Tunnel Road.
Diez pulled a gun and opened fire, hitting the victim in his bicycle helmet, according to police. They said the bullet penetrated the outer lining of the helmet but did not actually hit the victim’s head.
Police arrested Diez and charged him with attempted first degree murder.
Remember when discussions of gun control were all the rage?
Mr Fusion, I wasn’t trying to comment on whether guns should be banned or not. I was just pointing out how odd the reported story sounded. The firefigher was probably an ordinary person who just lost control of himself in extreme circumstances, like happens in most gun deaths and suicides.
@Uncle Dave “I interpret the 2nd Amendment to refer to an organized militia being able to be armed for the protection of the state. What confuses things is a militia back then was ordinary citizens who brought the weapons they had rather than being supplied them by the state. Current ‘militias’ — the National Guard — don’t work that way.” – Two problems with this thinking:
1) Organized militia is not for the protection of the State. It is for protection of the population, from anyone including federal or state Govt. gone wrong. Actually it is clear from founders documents that they feared the Govt. the MOST.
2) National Guard is not current militia. Population attacked y the Govt. needs to be able to organize and fight National Guard, if need be.
The only way population in general can have a chance of protecting itself from highly organized and supplied enemy (it started with British) is to be armed themselves and be able to self organize for their own protection if need arises. Govt. taking gun ownership rights equals preparation and ability of Govt. to strike unwilling citizenry with force they do not have means to protect themselves from. 2nd am. ensures that Govt. should never have such capability.
I own guns, long guns, pistol and revolvers. Even some flintlocks. I never applied for a carry permit because I never felt threatened. I do know several certifiable lunatics that do have a concealed carry. One always carries a Glock in a paddle back holster and a .32 in a ankle holster. This guy doesn’t carry money, or has a job or lifestyle that would justify protection. This is a walking time bomb. You should have to demonstrate need for a concealed carry, and it should be reviewable on a regular bases.
# 22 sac said, on July 29th, 2009 at 6:18 am
“You make it so easy to picture your knuckles dragging when you walk.”
Why pick on me? Because I own a gun and never pointed it at anyone? You’re an idiot.
#32: I want to see a group of hunters with shotguns (to pick a group) fight against the National Guard, much less assorted armed forces of the country, using tanks, RPGs, smart weapons, satellite surveillance and so on. Assuming the hunters don’t run out of beer before starting the attack.
In the past that sort of thing was possible, but technology has made that a pipe dream of the deluded. So has apathy.
Oh, and as for your comment about the National Guard, you might want to read up on the Militia Act of 1903, the National Defense Act of 1916, etc.
#24:
O.o
weird I was actually talking about the Asheville NC area… well a bit south of there, close to Pisgah Forest
Here we go again, a debate on gun control.
Yea, the firefighter had a gun, he the used the gun because he had it, if he didn’t have the gun he couldn’t shoot the Dad… bla, bla, bla… more sophistry (or just good ol’ BS).
You could spin this story to say it was a good thing the firefighter used the gun, it he had ran the Dad over with his car, he could have killed him.
The issue is a screwed-up firefighter over reacting to a careless father. Not gun control.
Here let me distract you guys from more real issues…
SARA PALIN, GOD, GWB, and Rush Limbaugh…
That should keep you busy for the next 100 posts…. HAHAHAHAH!!!!
#35
“In the past that sort of thing was possible, but technology has made that a pipe dream of the deluded. So has apathy.”
I think you overestimate the army or underestimate armed Americans. The army is stretched pretty thin just fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Each of those counties has a population around 32 million.* About 59 million adults owned a gun in the US in 93/94.
So, the US armed forces trying to fight all gun owners in the US would be similar to an Iraq and Afghanistan where EVERYONE is armed and fighting you. And the US would be way more complicated. Desertion would be high and local forces (like police) might join the people’s army from the beginning. Who will be the biggest threat? The hunters? The armed drug runners who know drugs will have no place in a new totalitarian state? The criminals who will inevitably get freed from prisons?
In short, unless major chunks of the US population got nuked, there seems like no chance in hell that the US Gov could try to round up everyone’s guns and become a police state.
*Wikipedia articles on those countries.
>Please explain to us how the intent of an armed militia means everyone may own automatic weapons for personal defense?
Isn’t that what the Swiss Army does?
>A well regulated pizza, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear tomatos, shall not be infringed
So does this protect ordinary citizens’ right to tomatoes?
#6 Personality, #9 jbenson2, #10 ubiquitous talking head, #12 Widgethead, #15 Benjamin, #19 Ruger, #24 Mac Guy, #26 AdmFubar,
You all have guns for self defense. Answer the following questions please… A stranger comes up to within 10 feet of you. Not unusual. He pulls a gun and shoots you in the face 3 times.
How does owning a gun protect you?
How does the right to own a gun protect you?
If the man pulled out a knife or a bat, would you have a much better chance of not getting killed?
#17, Ren, get a grip, slow down even more and stay calm and alert when you approach those dangerous turns you speak of. You are going to end up killing a bicyclist over being slightly inconvenienced. It isn’t worth the consequences .
JimR – so this crazy man who shoots strangers in the face, he is a stickler for gun laws?
“Aww shoot. Guns are illegal now, I guess I’d better stop shooting people in the face.”
#38: Seriously? Do you honestly think all gun owners, en mass, could stage a coup d’état? What are you smoking?
Do you really think all gun owners have the same politics? Americans are divided on practically every issue. Do you actually believe millions would all get off their asses to attack Washington and take over the government? How exactly would they organize this in secret? What charismatic Hitlerian leader would lead them into battle? What would they do with the government once they had it?
Sure, there are small groups of right-wing malcontents who think they can pull this off. They only succeed in the movies, and there only until the last reel. But for real? Seriously?
#tcc3, just answer the questions honestly if you have the courage. I’ll answer yours right after.
Also, tcc3, hint… it doesn’t matter to my questions it the man i’ve described shoots you in the face, head heart neck or groin so don’t use that as an excuse to go off on a tangent. My questions remain the same.
Uncle Dave–that is an interesting link you provided and made.
Just how out of control/in the thrawls of the like of tcc3 has this country become?
Our country was founded on a fear of the tyranny of the majority. Who knew the two party republican system would bring us the tyranny of special interests, all of them wacko or wealth transfer driven.
Best irony revealed for a long time. Keep the good stuff coming.
I wonder how many people still think seat belts should not be required because they knew a guy that was thrown clear of a vehicle that exploded in flames? People like tcc3 don’t understand what statiscal analysis is much less how to question a fact that agrees with his position.
Hah, hah.
do you hear that?
It’s the sound of America crashing into flames…..the end is near.
I just hope the stock market rallies and makes me rich before the empire collapses in on itself.
Its good to know that if I disagree with you, even one one issue, it makes me a crazy person.
Fuck you and “people like you” bobbo.
JimR, you’re right. In your very specific contrived scenario a gun would be of little use.
Lets say a gang of 6 thugs jumps you in an alley. They have no gun, they just beat you to death.
I suppose we should outlaw gathering in groups (right to assemble) and impose a curfew?
#48–tcc3==I don’t disagree with you on one issue. You evidenced bat shit crazy 5-6 times before I first responded. Now its just a rut.
You demonstrate the logical path of a fly with every post.
Your last one: guns have very little function beyond killing people, or animals, or targets to get better at the first two.
Assembling in groups does have other legitimate purposes.
See the difference and why your logic doesn’t exceed the good cleansing of a bumper sticker washing cloud burst?
Gun Rights. Wouldn’t exist without an activist court. Heh, heh!!
This story really does emphasise the biggest problem with guns laws in the US as they stand : idiots have guns and use them recklessly and irresponsibly. Many gun owners just cant be trusted with firearms. Yeah yeah you could be reckless and irresponsible with a machete or a pencil, but guns are a lot more efficient and easy for your average dickhead.
Owning guns to protect you from the tyranny of government may have been relevant 300 years ago but today’s military is more organised and has vastly superior firepower, so unless you are Jack Bauer or you have holed up deep in the Afghanistan mountains eating goats, weapons arn’t going to do you much good.
I still maintain that guns will more likely get you shot than protect you.
#39, Lyin’ Mike,
>Please explain to us how the intent of an armed militia means everyone may own automatic weapons for personal defense?
Isn’t that what the Swiss Army does?
No. Remember your buddy Patrick’s favorite excuse, Google it.
On a somewhat related note. Here is an entry from Michael Bane’s blog http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/
Opinion-An outrageous anti-gun move
Comments 123 | Recommend 7
July 21, 2009 – 6:57 PM
A recreational activity took the life of a man when he and a group of friends knowingly engaged in dangerous fun on government-regulated property. If authorities had prohibited the dangerous activity, the man would be alive.
Stop thinking shooting range.
The accident caused the June death of 61-year-old James Kennedy of Woodland Park. Kennedy and his friends, under the supervision of a professional guide, boarded a raft in order to challenge the white-water rapids of the Arkansas River in 2008. As the raft Kennedy rode in approached the F Street Bridge in Salida, it overturned. The water whisked Kennedy away, tossing him like a rag doll.
All on board the raft knew they were risking life and limb, and possibly putting others in danger. Only a week earlier, 67-year-old Oscar Stevenson III climbed aboard a raft on the Arkansas and died near Buena Vista. A few weeks before that, 26-year-old Subhashi Nelakurthi boarded a raft on the Arkansas and died in the Royal Gorge. Dangerous. Needless. Costly to the public.
Kris Wahlers, boating safety coordinator for Colorado, tells The Gazette 10 people have died in Colorado rafting accidents so far in 2009, and two have died in boating accidents on state reservoirs.
These senseless deaths by recreation would end, if only government would block access to the river with concrete barriers and barbed wire.
The 10 killed rafting in Colorado this year would have been in more danger had they chosen to snowboard or ski at any of Colorado’s ski resorts, most of which operate on national forest land. Snowboarding is the most dangerous outdoor hobby in the United States, as reported by the Centers for Disease Control. It is followed by sledding, hiking and mountain biking. All firearms accidents combined kill 1,150 people each year — in a country of more than 300 million privately owned guns.
Recreational shooting, therefore, may be the safest form of common outdoor recreation known to humankind.
The safety of recreational shooting is evident in the fact some 40,000 people each year shoot at the Pike National Forest’s Rampart Range Shooting Range, the only public range in El Paso County. It has been unsupervised since it opened in 1990. Hundreds of thousands of recreational shooters have used the range in 19 years of operation, yet the first death came Saturday. Otis Freison died when a member of his group tragically failed to clear a weapon of ammunition, leading to a negligent discharge.
That’s one fatal accident in 19 years. Imagine if other recreation facilities were that safe. One section of the Arkansas River took four lives in a week last year, yet rafting didn’t stop for a day.
This single shooting death in 19 years led Forest Supervisor Bob Leaverton to close the range indefinitely on Tuesday. That will cause some recreational shooters to practice their sport in more dangerous locations.
Closing Rampart, one of the safest recreational facilities in Colorado, is nothing other than an irrational bias against gun owners and their rights. Pike National Forest belongs to the public, and all must demand this anti-gun bureaucrat reopen the range immediately.
tcc3, hey… thanks for answering honestly.
if a gang of thugs jumped you in an alley, statistically they would most likely beat you to death as you said, even if you were the only one with a gun. the first one to strike usually wins when any weapons are involved.
In order for a gun to be used in an effective defense against the rare but unpredictable attack, you would have to have it with you, out and ready at all times just in case… like in a war. That’s not very safe and practical when most people are law abiding and have no intention of hurting anyone.
You can change the specifics of the “very specific contrived scenario” to anything you want, where most gun attacks against the innocent occur… (we don’t care about criminals killing criminals do we?)…. and it wouldn’t make a difference. The young person at an all night gas station, the clerk at a convenience store, the mugging on a side street, a car jacking, 20 feet away, 30 feet away, night day,… the person who has a gun out first is almost always the criminal… and first means everything.
I admit there are home break-ins where you might want a gun. But why not take the money you would spend on a guns and ammo and put in a security alarm and better locks, call the police and even let the crooks grab what they want if they do crash in, rather than get into a gun fight with much higher stakes. Right? Of course there are exceptions for farm residences and other isolated places, even in Canada.
So guns are pretty useless for the average citizen, but there are consequences for having so many useless weapons laying around. They get smuggled into Canada and they kill innocent people, mostly young, and working towards college on minimum wage. In fact I would wager that most of the 5 crime gun deaths per 100,000 people in Canada are from American guns. Many used in crime have been tracked back to the US.
The latest statistic I’ve seen is 27 death/100,000 in the USA from the criminal use of guns. That’s a big difference to Canada… but imagine the difference if you outlawed guns as well.
The solution is obvious. Take away those stupid, restrictive guns laws so the 3 year old can legally, and constitutionally, carry a gun. Then the child would be able to return fire.
#53–two etc==thats the most pathetic excuse for an argument I have read in a long time. Of a different sort, but right up there with Alfie thumping his bibble. How stupid can you get?
On a scale from zero to 10, how relevant/persuasive do you find your radio leader to be?
Recreational gun shooting is safer than other forms of recreation. Ok. How many snowboards are used to commit crime?
If snow boards were used to commit crimes, how long before you think they would be outlawed?
I don’t want to confuse you but its like using the statistics (always fun to do) suggesting that when doctors go on strike, the death rate goes down, so lets outlaw that profession.
–or–that movie theaters make all their profit on popcorn so there is no reason for them to suffer the cost of renting movies to be shown at break even. Just sell popcorn.
–or–that universal single payer insurance is a threat to your freedom.
Idiots. Not all love guns, but all gun lovers are idiots.
#54 Jim R… In so many ways the Canadians are a much better off society… And the selfish idiots down here keep forcing their will upon the people with no power. I know some will tell me “if you dont like it…blah blah” believe me if I could easily move to Canada .. I would… I dont live in the US now…but its my country.
Thank you Jim. We disagree, but you make a good argument, and you did it with out being an ass.
Here’s some trivia for you on Canada vs. USA. An American male is three times more likely to die from a firearms death than their Canadian counterpart. However, American females are seven times more likely. Overall, the US rate for gun related homicides is eight times higher.
Finally even though the firearm death rate has halfed in the last 30 years in Canada the suicide percentage has remained constant at around 80% with homicides and accidents making up the rest.
No matter how you look at it, it’s rather grim statistics.
tcc3, 🙂
I gave it by best shot. (oh, bad pun)