Road Rage shooting

[shooter115]

This is only a small town rumor (and is in no way intended to be a fact) but its going around that the biker had a knife pulled on the shooter.

That would actually make sense. Everyone is always so quick to condemn around here. First why would anyone pull into a police station like that, unless they were being pursued and felt like they were in danger. Seems like a logical place to go to me if I was being chased by someone.

Second why would anyone pull a gun and shoot someone knowing they were in a police station parking lot in front of witnesses unless their life was being threatened. How does anyone know the man wasn't attempting to enter the police station seeking help when he was assaulted and retreated back to his vehicle for a gun after the biker pulled knife. This is just one of a thousand possible scenarios. I do know that a PD parking lot wouldn't be my first choice location to commit an unjust homicide. How about waiting for some real info before assuming the guy just shot him in the face for the heck of it.

I don't know what happened nor will pretend to, but with all the stupid crap going on elsewhere, PTC's are going to be catching enough heat without some of you fanning the flames. If you want to debate go right ahead, but don't you think it would be better to debate fact than to shed negative light on someone based on sketchy, biased media coverage Just my $.02

[sgruenhagen44]

I heard the shooter was also 71 years old. If you were 71 even if you had a gun, I would probably steer clear of shaddy lookin bikers.

[solidgun]

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/10/0 ... -shooting/

No mention of a knife, but seems like the shooter was an a-hole when it comes to courteous driving etiquette and met people who couldn't tolerate it.

[lenny7]

http://www.startribune.com/local/172310611.html

[yukonjasper]

So, I guess what I gather from all of these examples of people who legally own guns, some have PTC and also prior or current histories of violent behavior/mental illness is that the screening process doesn't take the mental state of the purchaser/permit holder into account? Isn't that what is supposed to be happening with the waiting period to purchase and the background check to have a PTC. If you have some sort of questionable behavior - shouldn't that warrant a little closer look?

I know this won't be popular, but WTF is up with the mental cases being allowed to arm up? Who is checking the paper work and letting this stuff slide through. If I'm pissed about it, imagine how the Anti's are reading the cavalcade of road rage/office shootings and licking their chops.

It makes us all look bad and I don't want to be associated with these freaks. I think its our duty to try to self regulate if we can. I think its worth discussing ideas of how to make that happen.

[tman]

http://www.startribune.com/local/172310611.html

from the article:

Kadlec [the shooter] has a permit to carry a gun, according to the Isanti County Sheriff's Office. He also has been involved in five other road rage incidents in the past four years, according to the criminal complaint in this case.

Look, actual BLOOD IN THE STREETS with a permit holder, over a road rage incident. (OK, in the parking lot...but close!)

[sgruenhagen44]

So, I guess what I gather from all of these examples of people who legally own guns, some have PTC and also prior or current histories of violent behavior/mental illness is that the screening process doesn't take the mental state of the purchaser/permit holder into account? Isn't that what is supposed to be happening with the waiting period to purchase and the background check to have a PTC. If you have some sort of questionable behavior - shouldn't that warrant a little closer look?

I know this won't be popular, but WTF is up with the mental cases being allowed to arm up? Who is checking the paper work and letting this stuff slide through. If I'm pissed about it, imagine how the Anti's are reading the cavalcade of road rage/office shootings and licking their chops.

It makes us all look bad and I don't want to be associated with these freaks. I think its our duty to try to self regulate if we can. I think its worth discussing ideas of how to make that happen.

I strongly agree. I made a post similar to this one saying I thouht it was good that you do have to attain a permit. I had plenty of guys start freaking out saying it should be totally unregulated lol.

[tman]

So, I guess what I gather from all of these examples of people who legally own guns, some have PTC and also prior or current histories of violent behavior/mental illness is that the screening process doesn't take the mental state of the purchaser/permit holder into account?

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=245.041#stat.245.041

245.041 PROVISION OF FIREARMS BACKGROUND CHECK INFORMATION.

Notwithstanding section 253B.23, subdivision 9, the commissioner of human services shall provide commitment information to local law enforcement agencies on an individual request basis by means of electronic data transfer from the Department of Human Services through the Minnesota Crime Information System for the sole purpose of facilitating a firearms background check under section 624.7131, 624.7132, or 624.714. The information to be provided is limited to whether the person has been committed under chapter 253B and, if so, the type of commitment

For reference, here's chapter 253B. https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=253B

[yukonjasper]

I've got my flame suit on for the big L Liberatarians who think there should never be restrictions on anything. To a certain extent I agree except for the fact that the Utopia of absolute freedom isn't reality and ain't going to happen anytime soon, so that dream world head in the sand approach doesn't work for me.

In the mean time, we have whackjobs with histories that are the only representations of one of the groups I belong to that the "public" gets to see. So when I tell someone I carry or I flash etc. the only thing they think about is some crazed road rage senior citizen that shoots people in the face or some unbalanced Douche nozzle mass murderer who can't process being fired from a job and starts shooting everyone. My opinion is these people need to be screened crossmatched with their ownership/permit status and dealt with. Granted, it isn't going to stop the crazy from being crazy and even using a gun to do it, but it will be clearly outside the law.

They aren't me and as far as I'm concerned they are the obvious minority, however that isn't going to be the perception.

Why aren't these people screened out of the process. Its in place whether we like it or not - I'd say make it work if its there and let it do its job.

[yukonjasper]

So, I guess what I gather from all of these examples of people who legally own guns, some have PTC and also prior or current histories of violent behavior/mental illness is that the screening process doesn't take the mental state of the purchaser/permit holder into account?

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=245.041#stat.245.041

245.041 PROVISION OF FIREARMS BACKGROUND CHECK INFORMATION.

Notwithstanding section 253B.23, subdivision 9, the commissioner of human services shall provide commitment information to local law enforcement agencies on an individual request basis by means of electronic data transfer from the Department of Human Services through the Minnesota Crime Information System for the sole purpose of facilitating a firearms background check under section 624.7131, 624.7132, or 624.714. The information to be provided is limited to whether the person has been committed under chapter 253B and, if so, the type of commitment

For reference, here's chapter 253B. https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=253B

The key words are Commitment History. It has been mentioned in another thread regading the workplace shooting, I think, that discusses the threashold of Mental illness - the road rage complaints are another issue entirely.

[Jeff Bergquist]

To everyone who's getting in a twist that the law should be changed based on one incident: This guy was an a-hole who for some reason took the time to get his permit. Most a-holes such as him don't go to the trouble but carry if they want to anyway. What makes you think changing the law would have prevented an incident such as this? I call this the "Laws are Magic" mindset. Also, IMO the only way you're not going to have at least a few a-holes slipping through the cracks and legally carrying is to ban it for everyone. You have to look at the big picture and not let yourself be unduly swayed by individual incidents.

[Dante]

So, I guess what I gather from all of these examples of people who legally own guns, some have PTC and also prior or current histories of violent behavior/mental illness is that the screening process doesn't take the mental state of the purchaser/permit holder into account? Isn't that what is supposed to be happening with the waiting period to purchase and the background check to have a PTC. If you have some sort of questionable behavior - shouldn't that warrant a little closer look?

I know this won't be popular, but WTF is up with the mental cases being allowed to arm up? Who is checking the paper work and letting this stuff slide through. If I'm pissed about it, imagine how the Anti's are reading the cavalcade of road rage/office shootings and licking their chops.

It makes us all look bad and I don't want to be associated with these freaks. I think its our duty to try to self regulate if we can. I think its worth discussing ideas of how to make that happen.

I was right there with you until you started calling people with mental health issues "freaks".

[yukonjasper]

Two points need to be clarified
1. I am not calling for a change in the law - I was talking about self policing- Example: if you are a PTC instructor and you have an obvious squirrel in your class what should you do? - I don't have the answers, just looking for some conversations about how we flush out the goof balls who get guns for the wrong reasons or who probably aren't mature or stable enough to understand the consequences of using them in situations not calling for that level of force.

2. Not all people with Mental Illness are Freaks - But I think I'm safe adding that durrogatory term to people who flip out and shoot someone when a "normal" person and 99.9% of the population would have handle the situation differently. Be sensitive if you want but the if you can't discern truly aberrant behavior in people who have a history of aberrant behavior then we need to talk. Part of the reason these people slip through is everyone is afraid to "label" them as potentially destructive individuals. Somewhere someone has to have the cajones to call the squirrel a squirrel even if its going to hurt someones feelings.

[Jeff Bergquist]

1. I am not calling for a change in the law - I was talking about self policing- Example: if you are a PTC instructor and you have an obvious squirrel in your class what should you do? - I don't have the answers, just looking for some conversations about how we flush out the goof balls who get guns for the wrong reasons or who probably aren't mature or stable enough to understand the consequences of using them in situations not calling for that level of force.

Ummm... I guess it's up to the individual instructor how to deal with someone they think might be unstable, but part of the point I tried to make is that there isn't anything you can do to flush out all the goofballs. Having freedom implies the ability to abuse it. People these days tend to look at abuse of liberty as a problem that needs to be fixed, I prefer to view it as a side effect I'd rather live with than to surrender the freedom that allows it.

[yukonjasper]

1. I am not calling for a change in the law - I was talking about self policing- Example: if you are a PTC instructor and you have an obvious squirrel in your class what should you do? - I don't have the answers, just looking for some conversations about how we flush out the goof balls who get guns for the wrong reasons or who probably aren't mature or stable enough to understand the consequences of using them in situations not calling for that level of force.

Ummm... I guess it's up to the individual instructor how to deal with someone they think might be unstable, but part of the point I tried to make is that there isn't anything you can do to flush out all the goofballs. Having freedom implies the ability to abuse it. People these days tend to look at abuse of liberty as a problem that needs to be fixed, I prefer to view it as a side effect I'd rather live with than to surrender the freedom that allows it.

I don't totally disagree with you and, as I mentioned, you can't solve the problem. My point is that if, in this case, a 71 year old man has a history of road rage incidents and he applies for a permit to carry and that permit goes somewhere for some period of time - ostensibly for some sort of "review" wouldn't it be logical that his history would somehow pop up and give the Sherriffs office pause as to whether this person was worth having a conversation with potentially denying access to the permit altogether?
Self policing is another way of saying common sense. Abuse of Liberty by a small minority usually, and incorrectly, results in the Majority having to suffer through some BS legislation because we "can't be trusted to police oursleves. We are deemed too stupid to discern our own path, so rules are placed on the 99% because the 1% can't handle the freedom to choose. Not saying I agree with it, but it is reality. So rather than wait to be judged and then wait to be "managed" with legislation that takes away the freedom to choose (not really because we don't have a Priori legal system), you self police so the extra layers of "management" don't seem as necessary. If we wait for those who feel the need to "manage us" our freedom will be curtailed with rules and guidlines that hamper the daily lives of those who would otherwise follow the rules. You can't make the outliers go away, but you can identify them and force them to the higher standard.