What about that PA driver near the Maryland border who was chased for 15 minutes (probably equates to at least 15-18 miles) before being rammed off the road and then shot dead? What sort of road rage could possibly be "worth" shooting someone for.

 

Does anyone have any self control any more? Unless your life is being threatened there is NO excuse for pulling a weapon!
A text message during previews----yhgtbsm. :

 

I've always felt that you should get 1 missile launch per day.

 

I usually get mine right after that first cup of coffee in the morning.

 

This will become the norm. You havn't seen ANYTHING yet.

 

Not sure what you're asking there, but that's another example where we don't know what happened. You cite "road rage" because the media calls it a "road rage killing" but last we heard they still didn't know what the actual motivation was. Violence on a road labeled as "road rage" has a very specific connotation and in this case was completely made up by the press trying to make it look like a random John Q. Public with a gun goes nuts because guns just do that to people's minds.

"Road rage" as we use it in the zeitgeist/lexicon may or may not end up being what happened (if it was, the press got lucky because they are flat out guessing at best and outright planting stories at worst) but we do know that the authorities are looking into another case for the same suspect where a police officer was ambushed in what appeared to be an extremely premeditated thrill kill in another state over a month ago and that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "road rage".

Gotta love the lamestream media.

 

Yes, right, because when peopel carry every fender bender/arguement becomes a "wild west style shootout".

Except it doesn't. Care to delve into the actual data of concealed carry/castle doctrine states? There are many decades of data available, and much of it from very official government sources. Hint: you will lose your argument, big time.

 

I agree with you about the statistics and the doctrine. However, not referencing this incident specifically there are countless stories of people flying off the handle and over reacting in certain situations. When a police officer shoots someone without just cause I have a serious problem with that. Not knowing the entire story it can be difficult to make that assertion. I am just saying if it is the case that someone shoots someone else and takes a human life for ANY reason other than protecting their own do they reserve the right to carry a firearm?

 

Disclaimer. The above is strictly my opinion. I do not claim to be right or wrong on this issue. For all i know Gloopy could be right and i could be wrong. If he is correct based on statistics that are fact i respect that.

 

Not to nit pick, but you have a right to deadly force not only to protect your life but the lives of others (family members, children, etc) as well as great bodily harm to you and the same. You probably know and accept that but its worth mentioning.

As to the so called "road rage shooter" and the so called "texting in a movie theatre shooter" long before we delve into the constitutional rights issue we at least need to know what actually happened and in both cases we simply don't. The media is pimping us with tasty virtual hashtags that conjure up preconcieved notions and anti gun stereotypes (many of which they harbor deeply themselves) to both promote an agenda and, as always, to sell copy. And the second part of that is working well. For every "hey did you hear about that road rage killing guy" that passes around the gossip machine when we basically have no idea whatsoever what happened yet, modern journalism sinks another inch into the quicksand of irrelevancy.

I don't think you would find very many, let alone any, gun rights supporters who will say that someone has the right to carry a firearm who has committed a deliberate act of extreme and deadly violence against someone when it was not justified. Likewise the entire nation is not going to surrender a right because of the actions of a few, even if they played out as advertised by an extremely biased and activist branch of the media, and quite often they don't anyway.