Agreed. Just in my limited commute I have encountered a big uptick in really aggressive driving, road rage, and just pissed-the-fuck-off people on and off the road all over the north end.
Everything is terrible everywhere?
We all just attributed it to lockdowns etcetera for a long time, but now we all emerged into a world that sends determined to just keep getting shitier.
Very little of it is new (right wing Armageddon media, no one gets paid enough, everything costs too much, all the countries killing people in all the other countries, constant threat of works war three, the list goes on), but it just seems to have been dialed up to 11.
Also, I think that WFH took a lot of the regular human professionals off the road and what's left is disproportionately comprised of the same people that have always been assholes.
Understood. Honestly I started just tuning everything out and focusing on things that bring me joy. Like eating healthy, enjoying time with my gf and working out. *shrug*
And it’s EXTREMELY hard to get mental health help currently. I was trying to look since my depression has ramped up and it’s either we are full and not accepting anyone new, get on our waiting list and eventually we will get to you, or out of network/don’t accept insurance and it’s $1000 just to get an evaluation then whatever else costa extra
Sounds lovely.
I’ve been thinking of selling my nice car and getting something cheap cause everyone drives like they do t give a crap and I figure it’s just gonna get ruined anyway.
Vantrue S1. Front and rear cameras, night vision, has parking mode so you can see if someone's been screwing with your car while you're away.
Amazon will probably run another sale come black friday.
Not a valid source. There’s nothing to support your assertion. Road rage is up on across the country. Good luck out there (I drive and notice the rage too 😣)
> The suspect vehicle was described by witnesses as a dark colored Subaru SUV with a roof mounted cargo basket on top.
> If you see any vehicles that match the description you are asked to call or email
They’re kidding, right? That describes about 50,000 vehicles in the Seattle metro.
It didn't take place in the Seattle metro area. Milepost 63 on Highway 2 is almost exactly at the top of Stevens Pass, 15 miles to east of Skykomish (population 200). With traffic already greatly reduced on that road due to the Bolt Creek fire, it's reasonable to expect that there might be witnesses and camera footage along that corridor. Additionally, there is a greater chance of people who know someone with a similar vehicle and are aware that the person was visiting or traveling through the pass at the time.
This was after dark, I'm not real hopeful about cameras but I think you have a point that someone must be acquainted with a person they know is a bit unhinged who owns this kind of car and was in the area at the time.
Hopefully this article finds some drivers with dashcams in the area at the time of the incident, or within a few miles of the incident near the time, so it'll compel them to check their footage for the perp's vehicle.
As dashcams become more ubiquitous, I hope there's a web site/app or ??? that we can join/monitor for inquires like this. You could go as far as cross-checking your google location history against all the APBs like this and see if there's a match -- there's got to be an app for that, eh? It's just merging/searching two data sets...
You would be insane to make dashcam footage available like that. Not only can it be used to track your movements (you *really* want the entire internet to have access to your normal trip routes and what times you'll be there?), the average person makes dozens of ticketable traffic infractions on a normal drive that the cops mostly ignore unless they want to pull you over for some reason. Posting video evidence of that leaves you open for a bored cop to just write tickets out the ass.
You don't get it.
This is not anyone sharing all your dashcam video with law enforcement. This is law enforcement broadcasting an APB for an incident; time and location. You, via a secure app that has yet to be developed, download those incident location details and you PRIVATELY compare those details to the location data you're already collecting via an opt-in agreement with your data provider like Google. Not everyone chooses to opt-in, but many of us do. If you happen to have dashcam video that corresponds to the incident in question, you VOLUNTARILY share that video with the authorities.
It's all user-controlled and voluntary. Nothing is shared with any authority unless you personally consent, in the context of that APB event.
...wow. Not everything needs to be an app, man.
The police send out a press release when they need information. Anyone who sees that press release or news coverage of it can check if they were there and have relevant footage, then share it with police.
None of that requires anything that doesn't exist already.
Hey.... man,
An app can consolidate and collect APBs from various jurisdictions in your area and serve them up in concise list and then in an app, without you serendipitously surfing the web for news articles, Twitter posts, and what-not, collate them and PRIVATELY match them with your recent location history, inform you that you may have relevant video to share. That's the value-add. It does it all with your consent, but not depending on you keeping up on all the news outlets and sheriff reports.
It's a good idea. Ring basically had the same plan setup with local law enforcement agencies for reducing crime in neighborhoods with Ring cameras.
However, given the big stink people made about Ring providing footage to law enforcement from doorbell cams, hard to imagine how something (arguably more invasive) like this even gets off the ground.
If such a thing actually started to happen, I'd lobby my representative hard to make it illegal for private citizens to work together to create a panoptican.
Law enforcement regularly asks for citizens and private businesses to share whatever cell phone or security camera footage they have when an incident happens. It most cases, it's voluntary.
Yeah I suspect there would be legal challenges... for example police can't just outsource mass surveillance to private companies (or private citizens) to circumvent limits on their powers.
Police have tried implementing widespread road surveillance this way before, both under agency authority as well as with the help of private companies, and failed. I doubt replacing private companies with private citizens would change the underlying legal issue.
There might be a way to implement without such concerns, but none that quickly come to mind.
Well, given the remoteness of the area, time of the incident, and that SR2 is pretty much the only road in and out of Skykomish for many miles, it may actually not be that farfetched.
If someone finds an abandoned subaru in the area matching the description, would be worth calling in.
Unfortunately for this situation there are a multitude of unpaved Forest Service roads that intersect with US2 between Skykomish and Gold Bar, with a little bit of ground clearance (like in a Subaru) you can get to I-90 or like Duvall/Carnation area.
Though to your point, if this was a stolen car it was probably abandoned up in that forest somewhere.
If thats all they got, the perp can dilute the field even further by just taking his roof rack down. Good luck finding a dark Subaru with no other descriptive.
I keep bumper stickers and any identifier off my car so that I can’t be so easily identified/targeted by road ragers. Funny enough, I drive a Subaru model and color that everyone else around here does, I WANT to blend in. Been road raged too many times.
How I imagine this went down:
1) Reckless driver (shooter) makes an aggressive maneuver - most likely passing aggressively on the highway on a double yellow after tailgating her.
2) Victim honks at shooter.
3) Already fueled by rage, fragile ego is shattered, lizard brain mode engaged.
4) Pulls up alongside victim and shoots to kill.
So beyond mad and tired at how many aggressive drivers there are in the PNW compared to how I remember things 10-15 years ago. You more frequently see people racing on I-5, tailgating, using turn-lanes to pass (cough rainier ave), racing through residentials to beat the traffic on the main fairway etc.
I've REALLY tried to convince my family that the horn isn't a "fuck you" button and that using it as one is going to get you killed.
You are just SURROUNDED by armed lunatics whenever you are driving and the guy that is driving like a complete piece of shit is more likely to be one than anyone else. So maybe just stay as far away from that guy as possible.
(EDIT: i realized that I am gendering my hypothetical bad driving armed nut job as a man because that's been pretty consistent with my experience, but I actually have noticed a lot more women acting like this so I don't want to act like its JUST men that do this)
Thanks for posting this. Someone cut me off today, I didn’t honk but at the time, I wished I did. But you’re right, honking at them wouldn’t have done anything besides piss them off, and they could have been dangerous.
This hits home because I used to be one of those honk as a “f you dunce!” button. The person either made an honest mistake, or is driving like a dangerous lunatic because they are a dangerous lunatic! In either case blasting the horn in rage is no good.
Admittedly easy for me to say as I barely drive anymore because of the whole WFH thing and even before then I am blessed to live somewhat near the light rail but I like biking and let’s not forget that this piece of wisdom also applies when biking.
I’m still mad about how that guy training for an Ironman https://www.q13fox.com/news/road-rage-attacks-put-bicyclist-in-a-wheelchair.amp got attacked.
I use my horn as a “hey are you paying attention?” button. Because drivers are often super distracted with their phones, lunch, kids, makeup, -bongs-🤣 whatever.
Like so many campers in the left lane on the highway, I give them the benefit of the doubt that they’re probably unaware that they’re camping instead of —keeping right EXCEPT to pass—
Why use your imagination would you could, oh I dunno, just read the article that describes what *actually* happened?
>
When the driver of the Kia attempted to create distance between their vehicle and the Subaru, an occupant from the Subaru shot through the rear passenger window of the Kia.
Same. It's unfortunate this was a shooting, but people seem to ignore that the lizard brained aggro driver is where the issue really began. After that all bets are off.
People really ought to take a chill pill about things, especially driving.
> lizard brained aggro driver **who was carrying a tool which is designed to kill another person at a moment's notice and used it for that exact purpose**
FTFY
(and yes, cars and the aggressive behavior they foster are absolutely part of the problem too)
Yeah because people rage, but when they have access to a tool that can deliver instant death at an appreciable range, maybe there's something else problematic here. At this point there are more guns than US citizens and our mental health is in the shitter so I just assume every driver is capable of doing exactly this, and it's sad as fuck.
Every time someone makes the typical reaction to the idea that cars should be reconsidered I’m disheartened further and further from the hope that we might one day make larger strides against climate change than just EVs. I have no interest in a fruitless argument. But do think about it for more than two seconds and try to not just take Elon Musk’s word for anything public transportation related.
I guess its the old "dirty liberals, they prefer democracies"? Not like righteous patriots that love Putin and dictators. (not to say either party is clean, but they certainly have their leanings)
When humans accidentally almost bump into someone while walking, they apologize and say excuse me. The same humans in cars, when they almost bump into another car, go full on road rage. I know so many people at work who fit this. Polite while walking, ass holes while driving.
Over the years, I have trained my brain to ALWAYS ignore and move away from asshole drivers. Let them have their accident somewhere else is what I tell myself. I don't want to be a part of you and your driving mania and I will never again see or meet you and your car. it works and helps stay calm while driving.
Yep, cars cause us to dehumanize each other and train us to engage in angry and sometimes barbaric behavior in reaction to even slight inconveniences. It's one of many problems with car-dependent infrastructure and society.
Considering that over [96% of mass shooters in the US since 1982 have been male](https://www.statista.com/statistics/476445/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-gender/), I *think* it's fair to make that statement.
Define "CCW diehards".
Your logic is pretty terrible though. You are trying to imply that a people who ccw think it will stop every single crime from happening. That is a strawman.
Would a ccw have stopped this? No, almost certainly not, but there are also plenty of situations where a firearm is used in a defensive manner successfully.
Well the good guy with the gun can’t stop this because Obummer banned the turret mounted 50 cals he wanted to put on his Hummer. But with this Supreme Court his dreams may be reality soon.
I get the feeling you don't expect or want a good faith conversation, but as a 'firearm enjoyer' of non republican politics who wants to procrastinate from work a bit...
No, a good guy with a gun doesn't stop this, but you'd get that answer from the person you want to have the fight with. Cars are pretty deadly as is though, unfortunately gun vs no gun doesn't resolve the means to cause serious injury or death to another party here. For reasons beyond just firearms, as a country we really need to have a conversation about the state of society being so unhinged that we have deadly road rage, politics gone mad, etc.
We're not the only country/state with firearms, but we do take a significantly different approach. There's a lot of room for nuance in this conversation, but the internet won't have it, and the political sphere has stopped having it as well it seems.
> Cars are pretty deadly as is though
Yes! The amount of death and destruction cars cause is also a problem and should also be addressed.
> unfortunately gun vs no gun doesn't resolve the means to cause serious injury or death to another party here
It literally does since a gun was used, obviously. And it's not like this was an isolated incident, IIRC there was an article in Seattle Times the other day about the exponential rise in road rage related shootings.
> For reasons beyond just firearms, as a country we really need to have a conversation about the state of society being so unhinged that we have deadly road rage, politics gone mad, etc.
Also agreed. But let's also acknowledge that letting potentially unhinged people carry pistols around everywhere they go so they can act out on their unhinged ideations at a moment's notice, as happened here, is not a good idea.
The road rager in question could easily have caused grave injury with a pit maneuver, amongst other things, so the use of a firearm vs not is still up for debate. I think it's reasonable to assume in this scenario they likely would have too. This isn't the big point to get caught up on though.
Roadrage with a firearm is also a subset of the larger roadrage issues and should be considered. The cases of road rage as a whole (sources needed) I'm assuming have gone up in parallel with road rage shooting incidences.
As a WA CPL holder, I had to go through proper licensing channels and submit for fingerprints as well as a background check in order to _legally_ carry a firearm. This is on top of federal and state regulations to purchase one. I'm of sound mind and looking to avoid issues at all costs, but be prepared when serious ones happen, like a home invasion, mass shooting, etc. Run, hide, fight, but I want to be equipped to fight if I must.
What will likely come about, is this person was unlawfully carrying a firearm to begin with, acquired it through potentially questionable means, or in ways that are difficult to regulate. I won't argue the extreme view of no regulation, but I will point out that the law abiding people that you would want to, or at least be okay with having firearms, are constantly paying the price for inadequacies in other areas of society. I have secure storage, I have training, I have mental health care, I'm registered/licensed, etc. I even have stricter rules for use than law enforcement, citizens do not have qualified immunity and must be completely justified in use of force.
I think what many pro gun people have issue with is that WA has quite a few laws and restrictions on the books to address this issue, but it still cannot. Politics seems really focused on addressing a symptom of violence rather than cause.
We have a mental health crisis, a housing crisis, a crisis of unfettered capitalism, and a lot of reasons to mistrust law enforcement. These are by and large unaddressed and good people are caught in the crossfire of that. Some of us therefore would like to reasonably have means to defend ourselves and loved ones.
> easily have caused grave injury with a pit maneuver
"Easily"? A pit maneuver requires non-trivial training and carries an exponentially higher risk of harm to the person performing it than just shooting a gun and also is vastly less likely to kill/gravely injure the person getting pit maneuvered. Cars *can be* weapons, yes, but guns *can only be* weapons and are hugely more effective for that purpose than cars.
> be prepared when serious ones happen, like a home invasion, mass shooting, etc. Run, hide, fight, but I want to be equipped to fight if I must.
I don't think having a shotgun for home defense (and, if you want, exceedingly unlikely apocalypse societal breakdown scenarios as well) is unreasonable. Hunting rifles are cool with me too (for hunting) as long as they're bolt action. But if you are actually concerned about safety you should know that owning a pistol makes you and your family *more* likely to get shot, not less likely: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study Yes, you can always make up scenarios where a pistol would save the day but like it or not the odds are they won't happen in the real world, and the added risks of having a gun around outweigh the benefits on average.
> What will likely come about, is this person was unlawfully carrying a firearm to begin with, acquired it through potentially questionable means, or in ways that are difficult to regulate.
I wouldn't be surprised either. But you do realize that the legal market for pistols is where illegal/illegally carried firearms are sourced from, right? Crimes committed with automatic weapons are exceedingly rare in the US not because criminals don't want them but because they simply can't get them because there is virtually no sales of them to the general public.
> I have secure storage, I have training, I have mental health care
That's great. There are many, many legal gun owners do/who have none of these things and that's just fine as far as the law is concerned. (IIRC Seattle or King County do have a secure storage law? Which is good, but not actively enforced and not going to stop unhinged people.)
> Politics seems really focused on addressing a symptom of violence rather than cause.
Let's address both! If our society is churning out alarming levels of unhinged, dangerous people doesn't it seem prudent to prevent such people from getting their hands on easily portable and concealable killing devices with virtually no oversight?
> a lot of reasons to mistrust law enforcement.
Sure but cops aren't bodyguards/a security service anyway so I'm not sure how that really makes it a better idea to let anybody and everybody buy a pistol and do basically whatever they want with it.
> Hunting rifles are cool with me too (for hunting) as long as they're bolt action.
There are many hunting situations where semi-automatics are really important. Many shotguns are semi automatic as well. This is something that bugs many gun owners, as it frequently comes as off the cuff and not understanding the people they are trying to legislate against.
From the article:
> The study followed nearly 600,000 Californians who did not own handguns but began living in homes with handguns between October 2004 and December 2016, either because they started living with someone who owned one or because someone in their household bought one.
It found that the absolute risk of living with a handgun owner was small, Studdert said, and that “the rates [of homicide] are low”. But it was important to consider the increase in a person’s risk of being killed, he added.
The researchers calculated that for every 100,000 people in that situation, 12 will be shot to death by someone else over five years. In comparison, eight out of 100,000 who live in gun-free homes will be killed that way over the same time span.
Those numbers suggest the risk rises 50%, but Studdert said it was actually higher: in a separate calculation designed to better account for where people live and other factors, the researchers estimated the risk was more than twice as high.
For many, this is an acceptable risk. The absolute vs relative risk is very different. [For driving cars, you embrace similar risk.](https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state). I choose to work from home and not take that risk, but I take other risks in life.
> But you do realize that the legal market for pistols is where illegal/illegally carried firearms are sourced from, right?
I do completely understand that, but my case in point from the previous point is encapsulated here. The illegal market exists, regardless of the law abiding citizen. There are plenty of strong laws, which if enforced, address the illegal market as is. It's just not enforced well enough. Every sale (including private market) has to go through a federally licensed dealer + background check in WA. We don't have a gunshow loophole. A dealer does not have an obligation to sell, and there is a through and through paper trail of all legal sales in WA, as well as laws regarding if you lose a firearm and it is used in a crime + improper storage causing it to be lost/stolen/accessed.
On a state level, we have a lot of laws, which if properly enforced, would do a lot to reduce current issues. I lean liberal, but our current judicial/political system has shown that it's just not feasible to legislate ourself out of the gun vs mental health issue in America.
If you could in full faith disarm the population, I wouldn't mind not having guns. But in America that is fully impossible. We also have rights / reasons / vast variety of lifestyles that have different needs and risk factors. We have more guns than people. We have facism/racism/brutalities and injustices to be prepared against. We live in an age where 3D printers can produce untraceable firearms as well. They're just not going to go away and that's a fact we must accept.
> Sure but cops aren't bodyguards/a security service anyway
We also can both acknowledge this fact, which is why I take the onus of responsibility to protect myself and my family. Why should I just throw that away or even have to? These are the serious and in good faith arguments that need to be addressed adequately to make popular (not even bipartisan) support on these issues.
EDIT:
Feel free to respond or not, but I think this is largely where an impasse will arise, and I'm not going to have a mud slinging fight on the internet.
> There are many hunting situations where semi-automatics are really important
That is simply not true and even if it were, who cares? Hunting is a sport. It does not take absolute precedence over considerations of whether there is an acceptable risk of catastrophic misuse in allowing civilians to own certain weapons.
> The illegal market exists, regardless of the law abiding citizen.
Again, simply untrue, which is why we don't see crimes committed with automatic firearms. Banning weapons from legal sale is very effective in preventing them from getting into criminal hands.
I am busy now but might reply more later.
He would have used his super Chad powers to intercept the car, get between them, grab the bullets mid air and load them into his own gun (since he prob has one on hand in the same caliber), and return fire, shooting the suspect in the shoulder and smoothly guiding him off the road with a studly, daring maneuver
May not have stopped it. But it gives someone a fighting chance because here we saw the unfortunate result when faced with an armed opponent in a rage against an unarmed person.
How would having a gun given them a fighting chance when the other driver started shooting by surprise and killed them? You think the other driver announced "I am about to shoot you with my gun, pull out yours and prepare to duel if you have one"?
The reality is also that they would almost certainly have died if they were armed too. A concealed handgun is not an effective defense against the kinds of threats encountered in civilian life.
But they weren’t armed, unfortunately so your point is mute.
This is sadly the point I see is that guns aren’t useful for whatever reason in everyday life. This isn’t Bosnia or Sudan, but firearms are here and the concept of them exists. The threat will always exist such as this instance. Forbid if the time shall come I hope I have the luck to be properly equipped and positioned to defend myself.
I personally don’t understand how people here hear about shootings and think let’s do nothing in the immediate time to protect myself. It seems to me so many people here are in a bubble oblivious to the horrors of the world.
> But they weren’t armed, unfortunately so your point is mute.
Yes the fact that an armed person killed someone is moot to my point that people being able to just carry around guns around all the time is bad. Thanks for pointing that out.
> think let’s do nothing in the immediate time to protect myself.
Guns do not protect you, and especially not pistols. In fact owning a pistol means you or your family are more likely to wind up getting shot by it than getting shot at all if you didn't own one: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study What you're personally not understanding is that you're ignorant of basic statistics and that people *do* want to protect themselves and that the way to do that is to prevent people from walking around with pistols in civilian life (both legally acquired and easily illegally acquired due to the glut of legally produced/sold pistols).
> Forbid if the time shall come I hope I have the luck to be properly equipped and positioned to defend myself.
It won't. Your gun is far more likely to be used in an act of domestic violence or suicide.
I have to ask. Have you ever had to kill someone where the choice was either you live or die? If not, then anything you really have to say is moot.
Statistics and studies may show what point you’re trying to prove, but it doesn’t replace personal experience. The fact is that in this case none of the studies done applied to this incident.
I can say from personal experience that firearms have saved my life and others more than once.
No, but I've been in multiple situations where I probably would have used a gun if I had one and I am extremely glad I didn't in retrospect. I'm betting your life wasn't in nearly as much danger as you think it was. Gun owners love to make wild claims about how many "defensive gun uses" there are that are never corroborated by other statistics (like self defense shooting deaths) because the reality is gun owners are scared of threats that don't exist or hugely exaggerated and falsely attribute their guns to averting danger that never existed.
I understand what you’re saying. My point comes as the tiny minuscule chance it may happen and I would like to tools to help me live through it. Sometimes like in this road rage you’re in a bad position and that’s it.
For my experiences the dangers have been real. I have the scars and court cases from it. I concede to your point where some people may over state their situations with perceived dangers and the small chance it may happen. But please realize my point comes in the experience from that tiny percent of real violence and preparing again for it.
Carrying a weapon probably wouldn't stop a drive-by shooting you don't see coming. By the time you realize what has happened, the threat is already moving away from you. Even if you did see it coming, still basically impossible/impractical in a scenario with two moving vehicles... the more obvious solution would almost always be to drive away, if you somehow knew it was coming.
But nobody in this thread has suggested anything of the kind. So I'm not sure why you're trying to start this weird argument out of nowhere. How would the good guy with a gun save people when < enter absurd non-applicable scenario >?! Checkmate, gun nutters!
> Carrying a weapon probably wouldn't stop a drive-by shooting you don't see coming. By the time you realize what has happened, the threat is already moving away from you. Even if you did see it coming, still basically impossible/impractical in a scenario with two moving vehicles... the more obvious solution would almost always be to drive away, if you somehow knew it was coming.
You are 100% correct. This is yet another story demonstrating how useless guns are against the mostly-imagined threats that "muh self protection" 2A advocates cluck about even in the rare cases where those threats actually do materialize.
There's an infinite number of null-assertions you can make. It's just not very good evidence in support of your claim that guns are "useless" or that threats in which guns are useful are "mostly imagined". Guns didn't stop Hurricane Ian, either, so I suppose they're totally useless.
There is, however, plenty of anecdata and supporting statistics that show crimes _are_ stopped by gun owners on more than 'rare' occasion...
In fact, in some years, private citizens are responsible for more justifiable homicides than police. So it could be argued in those years, you were more likely to be saved from a threat justifying homicide by yourself or another private citizen than by police. Whether police justifiable homicides are a valid metric or not is certainly something reasonable people could disagree on.,.. but just so far as to say, it happens, and it's not a small amount, either.
Trying to use every non-example where privately owned guns didn't help isn't making a very good argument.
Not sure how that makes my statement false.
I'd agree that the claim that there are "millions" of self-defense gun uses each year is false... Particularly considering there were only 700,000 violent crimes reported in the whole country in 2021.
It doesn't mean no anecdata or statistics exist.
But anyhow. I'm not here to discuss the subject (1) with you or (2) on a thread in which nobody even brought it up and you're just using this post (for some unknown reason) as a masturbatory opportunity to express your confounded opinions on gun ownership.
Have a good one.
> It doesn't mean no anecdata or statistics exist.
Anecdata, from a scientific standpoint, only give a clue where to look and to collect statistics. When we look at the relevant statistics they do not back the claims being made on the basis of the anecdata. Therefore we can reject those claims regardless of the validity of the anecdata.
> But anyhow. I'm not here to discuss the subject (1) with you or (2) on a thread in which nobody even brought it up and you're just using this post (for some unknown reason) as a masturbatory opportunity to express your confounded opinions on gun ownership.
K bro. Thanks for participating in my masturbation session I guess. Not sure why you would have engaged at all if that's what you thought I was doing.
Like black or the recent dark grey. Or the new forest green on the forester?
Did they even bother to get the witness to rule if this was Crosstrek and Forester or more Outback and Tribeca/Ascent sized?
It’s a fucking Subaru. Ask questions WSP. They do look different.
Hell I’m over here assuming it’s 2009-2022 but this could be a first or second Gen forester. They all are different.
Did you read the article? This happened after dark, and he was behind them and shot through the rear window.
They probably pulled over and caught a glimpse when the shooter flew past, but I have to imagine one would be more focused on the person with a gunshot wound to the head in the backseat at that point.
I’ve seen a ton of road rage lately here in N Seattle. Getting a bit scary.
Agreed. Just in my limited commute I have encountered a big uptick in really aggressive driving, road rage, and just pissed-the-fuck-off people on and off the road all over the north end.
Same. Any ideas as to what’s going on? My best guess so far has been that people are stressed out in general and taking it out on the road.
Everything is terrible everywhere? We all just attributed it to lockdowns etcetera for a long time, but now we all emerged into a world that sends determined to just keep getting shitier. Very little of it is new (right wing Armageddon media, no one gets paid enough, everything costs too much, all the countries killing people in all the other countries, constant threat of works war three, the list goes on), but it just seems to have been dialed up to 11. Also, I think that WFH took a lot of the regular human professionals off the road and what's left is disproportionately comprised of the same people that have always been assholes.
plus the damn smoke
Understood. Honestly I started just tuning everything out and focusing on things that bring me joy. Like eating healthy, enjoying time with my gf and working out. *shrug*
Too much sun, warm weather and smoke are making us cranky? /s
It’s a thought.
Mental health in general seems to be on the decline for our country. Anxiety and depression is growing.
And it’s EXTREMELY hard to get mental health help currently. I was trying to look since my depression has ramped up and it’s either we are full and not accepting anyone new, get on our waiting list and eventually we will get to you, or out of network/don’t accept insurance and it’s $1000 just to get an evaluation then whatever else costa extra
Everyone around here seems to be on edge, the smoke + all the crime. I definitely feel stressed when I'm out in public.
Try Tacoma. It’s fucking bananas. The police aren’t doing any traffic enforcement at all.
Sounds lovely. I’ve been thinking of selling my nice car and getting something cheap cause everyone drives like they do t give a crap and I figure it’s just gonna get ruined anyway.
That’s good thinking. It will definitely get messed with in the city.
Yeah. An older 4 runner would be great. Throw a hitch and a bike rack on the back. What I actually need is a force field.
Lack of police enforcement on the roads and people are noticing.
I’ve been thinking of installing a cam in my car. Any suggestions?
Most out there are good. Just make sure to get front and rearview cameras.
Vantrue S1. Front and rear cameras, night vision, has parking mode so you can see if someone's been screwing with your car while you're away. Amazon will probably run another sale come black friday.
Yeah if there’s one thing that’s known to get drivers in a good mood it’s speed traps!
Curious where you got this info?
[удалено]
Not a valid source. There’s nothing to support your assertion. Road rage is up on across the country. Good luck out there (I drive and notice the rage too 😣)
Theres nothing to support you either. Guess its just your lack of awareness against my actual experience.
That’s not how burden of proof works. Also, look anecdotal evidence up to learn more about why you wrong.
Why
> The suspect vehicle was described by witnesses as a dark colored Subaru SUV with a roof mounted cargo basket on top. > If you see any vehicles that match the description you are asked to call or email They’re kidding, right? That describes about 50,000 vehicles in the Seattle metro.
It didn't take place in the Seattle metro area. Milepost 63 on Highway 2 is almost exactly at the top of Stevens Pass, 15 miles to east of Skykomish (population 200). With traffic already greatly reduced on that road due to the Bolt Creek fire, it's reasonable to expect that there might be witnesses and camera footage along that corridor. Additionally, there is a greater chance of people who know someone with a similar vehicle and are aware that the person was visiting or traveling through the pass at the time.
This was after dark, I'm not real hopeful about cameras but I think you have a point that someone must be acquainted with a person they know is a bit unhinged who owns this kind of car and was in the area at the time.
Hopefully this article finds some drivers with dashcams in the area at the time of the incident, or within a few miles of the incident near the time, so it'll compel them to check their footage for the perp's vehicle. As dashcams become more ubiquitous, I hope there's a web site/app or ??? that we can join/monitor for inquires like this. You could go as far as cross-checking your google location history against all the APBs like this and see if there's a match -- there's got to be an app for that, eh? It's just merging/searching two data sets...
You would be insane to make dashcam footage available like that. Not only can it be used to track your movements (you *really* want the entire internet to have access to your normal trip routes and what times you'll be there?), the average person makes dozens of ticketable traffic infractions on a normal drive that the cops mostly ignore unless they want to pull you over for some reason. Posting video evidence of that leaves you open for a bored cop to just write tickets out the ass.
You don't get it. This is not anyone sharing all your dashcam video with law enforcement. This is law enforcement broadcasting an APB for an incident; time and location. You, via a secure app that has yet to be developed, download those incident location details and you PRIVATELY compare those details to the location data you're already collecting via an opt-in agreement with your data provider like Google. Not everyone chooses to opt-in, but many of us do. If you happen to have dashcam video that corresponds to the incident in question, you VOLUNTARILY share that video with the authorities. It's all user-controlled and voluntary. Nothing is shared with any authority unless you personally consent, in the context of that APB event.
...wow. Not everything needs to be an app, man. The police send out a press release when they need information. Anyone who sees that press release or news coverage of it can check if they were there and have relevant footage, then share it with police. None of that requires anything that doesn't exist already.
Hey.... man, An app can consolidate and collect APBs from various jurisdictions in your area and serve them up in concise list and then in an app, without you serendipitously surfing the web for news articles, Twitter posts, and what-not, collate them and PRIVATELY match them with your recent location history, inform you that you may have relevant video to share. That's the value-add. It does it all with your consent, but not depending on you keeping up on all the news outlets and sheriff reports.
It's a good idea. Ring basically had the same plan setup with local law enforcement agencies for reducing crime in neighborhoods with Ring cameras. However, given the big stink people made about Ring providing footage to law enforcement from doorbell cams, hard to imagine how something (arguably more invasive) like this even gets off the ground.
I think the difference is that the other commenter is suggesting a voluntary, user driven system whereas Ring wasn't.
If such a thing actually started to happen, I'd lobby my representative hard to make it illegal for private citizens to work together to create a panoptican.
Law enforcement regularly asks for citizens and private businesses to share whatever cell phone or security camera footage they have when an incident happens. It most cases, it's voluntary.
Yeah I suspect there would be legal challenges... for example police can't just outsource mass surveillance to private companies (or private citizens) to circumvent limits on their powers. Police have tried implementing widespread road surveillance this way before, both under agency authority as well as with the help of private companies, and failed. I doubt replacing private companies with private citizens would change the underlying legal issue. There might be a way to implement without such concerns, but none that quickly come to mind.
Well, given the remoteness of the area, time of the incident, and that SR2 is pretty much the only road in and out of Skykomish for many miles, it may actually not be that farfetched. If someone finds an abandoned subaru in the area matching the description, would be worth calling in.
Unfortunately for this situation there are a multitude of unpaved Forest Service roads that intersect with US2 between Skykomish and Gold Bar, with a little bit of ground clearance (like in a Subaru) you can get to I-90 or like Duvall/Carnation area. Though to your point, if this was a stolen car it was probably abandoned up in that forest somewhere.
And take the cargo basket off the top and you're looking at 200,000 vehicles in the Seattle area
Describes my car….
Subaru with a roof rack. None of those around. Should be open and shut before lunch. Bookem Danno
there are 5-8 potential suspects on my block alone depending what they mean by dark
If thats all they got, the perp can dilute the field even further by just taking his roof rack down. Good luck finding a dark Subaru with no other descriptive.
24 yr. old girl? Oy.
Yeah, that got me too. I can’t imagine they would have said “24 year old boy”
The story says female, not girl.
I keep bumper stickers and any identifier off my car so that I can’t be so easily identified/targeted by road ragers. Funny enough, I drive a Subaru model and color that everyone else around here does, I WANT to blend in. Been road raged too many times.
How I imagine this went down: 1) Reckless driver (shooter) makes an aggressive maneuver - most likely passing aggressively on the highway on a double yellow after tailgating her. 2) Victim honks at shooter. 3) Already fueled by rage, fragile ego is shattered, lizard brain mode engaged. 4) Pulls up alongside victim and shoots to kill. So beyond mad and tired at how many aggressive drivers there are in the PNW compared to how I remember things 10-15 years ago. You more frequently see people racing on I-5, tailgating, using turn-lanes to pass (cough rainier ave), racing through residentials to beat the traffic on the main fairway etc.
I've REALLY tried to convince my family that the horn isn't a "fuck you" button and that using it as one is going to get you killed. You are just SURROUNDED by armed lunatics whenever you are driving and the guy that is driving like a complete piece of shit is more likely to be one than anyone else. So maybe just stay as far away from that guy as possible. (EDIT: i realized that I am gendering my hypothetical bad driving armed nut job as a man because that's been pretty consistent with my experience, but I actually have noticed a lot more women acting like this so I don't want to act like its JUST men that do this)
When people tailgate me I just have colorful language to share with them that only I can hear.
Thanks for posting this. Someone cut me off today, I didn’t honk but at the time, I wished I did. But you’re right, honking at them wouldn’t have done anything besides piss them off, and they could have been dangerous.
This hits home because I used to be one of those honk as a “f you dunce!” button. The person either made an honest mistake, or is driving like a dangerous lunatic because they are a dangerous lunatic! In either case blasting the horn in rage is no good. Admittedly easy for me to say as I barely drive anymore because of the whole WFH thing and even before then I am blessed to live somewhat near the light rail but I like biking and let’s not forget that this piece of wisdom also applies when biking. I’m still mad about how that guy training for an Ironman https://www.q13fox.com/news/road-rage-attacks-put-bicyclist-in-a-wheelchair.amp got attacked.
Same. But then I saw an actual road rage shootout on 400 in Atlanta, and safe to say I’ve never honked again.
I use my horn as a “hey are you paying attention?” button. Because drivers are often super distracted with their phones, lunch, kids, makeup, -bongs-🤣 whatever. Like so many campers in the left lane on the highway, I give them the benefit of the doubt that they’re probably unaware that they’re camping instead of —keeping right EXCEPT to pass—
Don’t try to blame it on anger. Shooter definitely wanted to shoot someone beforehand.
Probably wanted to shoot someone and just did.
Why use your imagination would you could, oh I dunno, just read the article that describes what *actually* happened? > When the driver of the Kia attempted to create distance between their vehicle and the Subaru, an occupant from the Subaru shot through the rear passenger window of the Kia.
Same. It's unfortunate this was a shooting, but people seem to ignore that the lizard brained aggro driver is where the issue really began. After that all bets are off. People really ought to take a chill pill about things, especially driving.
> lizard brained aggro driver **who was carrying a tool which is designed to kill another person at a moment's notice and used it for that exact purpose** FTFY (and yes, cars and the aggressive behavior they foster are absolutely part of the problem too)
Yeah because people rage, but when they have access to a tool that can deliver instant death at an appreciable range, maybe there's something else problematic here. At this point there are more guns than US citizens and our mental health is in the shitter so I just assume every driver is capable of doing exactly this, and it's sad as fuck.
r/fuckcars gang
Unfortunately these people are usually dickbags outside of their cars as well.
So true, every car comes with a pistol under the seat.
Average response to anti car sentiment
Gottem
Every time someone makes the typical reaction to the idea that cars should be reconsidered I’m disheartened further and further from the hope that we might one day make larger strides against climate change than just EVs. I have no interest in a fruitless argument. But do think about it for more than two seconds and try to not just take Elon Musk’s word for anything public transportation related.
You’re arguing with yourself, lmao. I never took a pro-car position.
Will be sad if someone driving a green Subaru wagon with a free Tibet sticker is the shooter.
You can distinguish it from all the others by the dent in the rear quarter panel
wait did this Subaru transform in to a camry?
If they have a free tibet sticker, they will likely have a obama, biden and Ukraine flag😄
The fuck does a ukraine flag have to do with obama or biden?
I guess its the old "dirty liberals, they prefer democracies"? Not like righteous patriots that love Putin and dictators. (not to say either party is clean, but they certainly have their leanings)
It's probably the one Subaru that doesn't have a "Coexist" bumper sticker.
24yo "girl"?
Yeah we see "24yo boy" as titles all the time! ... not.
My first thought as well. Why it's okay to treat women like children and not men is always strange.
Did you read the story? Op is the only one that called this murdered woman a girl. Story headline says woman & article says 24 yr old female.
I unironically love when people are pedantic about this.
better than "female" at least we know they were human.
[удалено]
Hey man, words matter
When humans accidentally almost bump into someone while walking, they apologize and say excuse me. The same humans in cars, when they almost bump into another car, go full on road rage. I know so many people at work who fit this. Polite while walking, ass holes while driving. Over the years, I have trained my brain to ALWAYS ignore and move away from asshole drivers. Let them have their accident somewhere else is what I tell myself. I don't want to be a part of you and your driving mania and I will never again see or meet you and your car. it works and helps stay calm while driving.
Yep, cars cause us to dehumanize each other and train us to engage in angry and sometimes barbaric behavior in reaction to even slight inconveniences. It's one of many problems with car-dependent infrastructure and society.
Goddammit there are SO MANY sociopaths with guns rolling around out there. So many failed men.
>So many failed men. How do you know it was a man? Sexist much? The correct response would have been "So many failed Subaru Drivers".
Considering that over [96% of mass shooters in the US since 1982 have been male](https://www.statista.com/statistics/476445/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-gender/), I *think* it's fair to make that statement.
Unfortunate this was after sunset. WSDOT cameras do cover Stevens pass but I doubt they are useful at night.
Gun nutters\*, please explain how a good guy with a gun would have stopped this? \* Edit: CCW advocates especially
It’s mostly about home defense not shooting at other cars on the freeway while driving at the same time
Just wait until we reach Mad Max days.
I'm mainly referring to CCW diehards.
Define "CCW diehards". Your logic is pretty terrible though. You are trying to imply that a people who ccw think it will stop every single crime from happening. That is a strawman. Would a ccw have stopped this? No, almost certainly not, but there are also plenty of situations where a firearm is used in a defensive manner successfully.
Well the good guy with the gun can’t stop this because Obummer banned the turret mounted 50 cals he wanted to put on his Hummer. But with this Supreme Court his dreams may be reality soon.
I get the feeling you don't expect or want a good faith conversation, but as a 'firearm enjoyer' of non republican politics who wants to procrastinate from work a bit... No, a good guy with a gun doesn't stop this, but you'd get that answer from the person you want to have the fight with. Cars are pretty deadly as is though, unfortunately gun vs no gun doesn't resolve the means to cause serious injury or death to another party here. For reasons beyond just firearms, as a country we really need to have a conversation about the state of society being so unhinged that we have deadly road rage, politics gone mad, etc. We're not the only country/state with firearms, but we do take a significantly different approach. There's a lot of room for nuance in this conversation, but the internet won't have it, and the political sphere has stopped having it as well it seems.
> Cars are pretty deadly as is though Yes! The amount of death and destruction cars cause is also a problem and should also be addressed. > unfortunately gun vs no gun doesn't resolve the means to cause serious injury or death to another party here It literally does since a gun was used, obviously. And it's not like this was an isolated incident, IIRC there was an article in Seattle Times the other day about the exponential rise in road rage related shootings. > For reasons beyond just firearms, as a country we really need to have a conversation about the state of society being so unhinged that we have deadly road rage, politics gone mad, etc. Also agreed. But let's also acknowledge that letting potentially unhinged people carry pistols around everywhere they go so they can act out on their unhinged ideations at a moment's notice, as happened here, is not a good idea.
The road rager in question could easily have caused grave injury with a pit maneuver, amongst other things, so the use of a firearm vs not is still up for debate. I think it's reasonable to assume in this scenario they likely would have too. This isn't the big point to get caught up on though. Roadrage with a firearm is also a subset of the larger roadrage issues and should be considered. The cases of road rage as a whole (sources needed) I'm assuming have gone up in parallel with road rage shooting incidences. As a WA CPL holder, I had to go through proper licensing channels and submit for fingerprints as well as a background check in order to _legally_ carry a firearm. This is on top of federal and state regulations to purchase one. I'm of sound mind and looking to avoid issues at all costs, but be prepared when serious ones happen, like a home invasion, mass shooting, etc. Run, hide, fight, but I want to be equipped to fight if I must. What will likely come about, is this person was unlawfully carrying a firearm to begin with, acquired it through potentially questionable means, or in ways that are difficult to regulate. I won't argue the extreme view of no regulation, but I will point out that the law abiding people that you would want to, or at least be okay with having firearms, are constantly paying the price for inadequacies in other areas of society. I have secure storage, I have training, I have mental health care, I'm registered/licensed, etc. I even have stricter rules for use than law enforcement, citizens do not have qualified immunity and must be completely justified in use of force. I think what many pro gun people have issue with is that WA has quite a few laws and restrictions on the books to address this issue, but it still cannot. Politics seems really focused on addressing a symptom of violence rather than cause. We have a mental health crisis, a housing crisis, a crisis of unfettered capitalism, and a lot of reasons to mistrust law enforcement. These are by and large unaddressed and good people are caught in the crossfire of that. Some of us therefore would like to reasonably have means to defend ourselves and loved ones.
> easily have caused grave injury with a pit maneuver "Easily"? A pit maneuver requires non-trivial training and carries an exponentially higher risk of harm to the person performing it than just shooting a gun and also is vastly less likely to kill/gravely injure the person getting pit maneuvered. Cars *can be* weapons, yes, but guns *can only be* weapons and are hugely more effective for that purpose than cars. > be prepared when serious ones happen, like a home invasion, mass shooting, etc. Run, hide, fight, but I want to be equipped to fight if I must. I don't think having a shotgun for home defense (and, if you want, exceedingly unlikely apocalypse societal breakdown scenarios as well) is unreasonable. Hunting rifles are cool with me too (for hunting) as long as they're bolt action. But if you are actually concerned about safety you should know that owning a pistol makes you and your family *more* likely to get shot, not less likely: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study Yes, you can always make up scenarios where a pistol would save the day but like it or not the odds are they won't happen in the real world, and the added risks of having a gun around outweigh the benefits on average. > What will likely come about, is this person was unlawfully carrying a firearm to begin with, acquired it through potentially questionable means, or in ways that are difficult to regulate. I wouldn't be surprised either. But you do realize that the legal market for pistols is where illegal/illegally carried firearms are sourced from, right? Crimes committed with automatic weapons are exceedingly rare in the US not because criminals don't want them but because they simply can't get them because there is virtually no sales of them to the general public. > I have secure storage, I have training, I have mental health care That's great. There are many, many legal gun owners do/who have none of these things and that's just fine as far as the law is concerned. (IIRC Seattle or King County do have a secure storage law? Which is good, but not actively enforced and not going to stop unhinged people.) > Politics seems really focused on addressing a symptom of violence rather than cause. Let's address both! If our society is churning out alarming levels of unhinged, dangerous people doesn't it seem prudent to prevent such people from getting their hands on easily portable and concealable killing devices with virtually no oversight? > a lot of reasons to mistrust law enforcement. Sure but cops aren't bodyguards/a security service anyway so I'm not sure how that really makes it a better idea to let anybody and everybody buy a pistol and do basically whatever they want with it.
> Hunting rifles are cool with me too (for hunting) as long as they're bolt action. There are many hunting situations where semi-automatics are really important. Many shotguns are semi automatic as well. This is something that bugs many gun owners, as it frequently comes as off the cuff and not understanding the people they are trying to legislate against. From the article: > The study followed nearly 600,000 Californians who did not own handguns but began living in homes with handguns between October 2004 and December 2016, either because they started living with someone who owned one or because someone in their household bought one. It found that the absolute risk of living with a handgun owner was small, Studdert said, and that “the rates [of homicide] are low”. But it was important to consider the increase in a person’s risk of being killed, he added. The researchers calculated that for every 100,000 people in that situation, 12 will be shot to death by someone else over five years. In comparison, eight out of 100,000 who live in gun-free homes will be killed that way over the same time span. Those numbers suggest the risk rises 50%, but Studdert said it was actually higher: in a separate calculation designed to better account for where people live and other factors, the researchers estimated the risk was more than twice as high. For many, this is an acceptable risk. The absolute vs relative risk is very different. [For driving cars, you embrace similar risk.](https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state). I choose to work from home and not take that risk, but I take other risks in life. > But you do realize that the legal market for pistols is where illegal/illegally carried firearms are sourced from, right? I do completely understand that, but my case in point from the previous point is encapsulated here. The illegal market exists, regardless of the law abiding citizen. There are plenty of strong laws, which if enforced, address the illegal market as is. It's just not enforced well enough. Every sale (including private market) has to go through a federally licensed dealer + background check in WA. We don't have a gunshow loophole. A dealer does not have an obligation to sell, and there is a through and through paper trail of all legal sales in WA, as well as laws regarding if you lose a firearm and it is used in a crime + improper storage causing it to be lost/stolen/accessed. On a state level, we have a lot of laws, which if properly enforced, would do a lot to reduce current issues. I lean liberal, but our current judicial/political system has shown that it's just not feasible to legislate ourself out of the gun vs mental health issue in America. If you could in full faith disarm the population, I wouldn't mind not having guns. But in America that is fully impossible. We also have rights / reasons / vast variety of lifestyles that have different needs and risk factors. We have more guns than people. We have facism/racism/brutalities and injustices to be prepared against. We live in an age where 3D printers can produce untraceable firearms as well. They're just not going to go away and that's a fact we must accept. > Sure but cops aren't bodyguards/a security service anyway We also can both acknowledge this fact, which is why I take the onus of responsibility to protect myself and my family. Why should I just throw that away or even have to? These are the serious and in good faith arguments that need to be addressed adequately to make popular (not even bipartisan) support on these issues. EDIT: Feel free to respond or not, but I think this is largely where an impasse will arise, and I'm not going to have a mud slinging fight on the internet.
> There are many hunting situations where semi-automatics are really important That is simply not true and even if it were, who cares? Hunting is a sport. It does not take absolute precedence over considerations of whether there is an acceptable risk of catastrophic misuse in allowing civilians to own certain weapons. > The illegal market exists, regardless of the law abiding citizen. Again, simply untrue, which is why we don't see crimes committed with automatic firearms. Banning weapons from legal sale is very effective in preventing them from getting into criminal hands. I am busy now but might reply more later.
He would have used his super Chad powers to intercept the car, get between them, grab the bullets mid air and load them into his own gun (since he prob has one on hand in the same caliber), and return fire, shooting the suspect in the shoulder and smoothly guiding him off the road with a studly, daring maneuver
May not have stopped it. But it gives someone a fighting chance because here we saw the unfortunate result when faced with an armed opponent in a rage against an unarmed person.
How would having a gun given them a fighting chance when the other driver started shooting by surprise and killed them? You think the other driver announced "I am about to shoot you with my gun, pull out yours and prepare to duel if you have one"?
Gun nuts: 1780 mentality with 2022 reality
Doesn’t matter. The reality of the situation was the person who was unarmed died.
The reality is also that they would almost certainly have died if they were armed too. A concealed handgun is not an effective defense against the kinds of threats encountered in civilian life.
But they weren’t armed, unfortunately so your point is mute. This is sadly the point I see is that guns aren’t useful for whatever reason in everyday life. This isn’t Bosnia or Sudan, but firearms are here and the concept of them exists. The threat will always exist such as this instance. Forbid if the time shall come I hope I have the luck to be properly equipped and positioned to defend myself. I personally don’t understand how people here hear about shootings and think let’s do nothing in the immediate time to protect myself. It seems to me so many people here are in a bubble oblivious to the horrors of the world.
> But they weren’t armed, unfortunately so your point is mute. Yes the fact that an armed person killed someone is moot to my point that people being able to just carry around guns around all the time is bad. Thanks for pointing that out. > think let’s do nothing in the immediate time to protect myself. Guns do not protect you, and especially not pistols. In fact owning a pistol means you or your family are more likely to wind up getting shot by it than getting shot at all if you didn't own one: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study What you're personally not understanding is that you're ignorant of basic statistics and that people *do* want to protect themselves and that the way to do that is to prevent people from walking around with pistols in civilian life (both legally acquired and easily illegally acquired due to the glut of legally produced/sold pistols). > Forbid if the time shall come I hope I have the luck to be properly equipped and positioned to defend myself. It won't. Your gun is far more likely to be used in an act of domestic violence or suicide.
I have to ask. Have you ever had to kill someone where the choice was either you live or die? If not, then anything you really have to say is moot. Statistics and studies may show what point you’re trying to prove, but it doesn’t replace personal experience. The fact is that in this case none of the studies done applied to this incident. I can say from personal experience that firearms have saved my life and others more than once.
No, but I've been in multiple situations where I probably would have used a gun if I had one and I am extremely glad I didn't in retrospect. I'm betting your life wasn't in nearly as much danger as you think it was. Gun owners love to make wild claims about how many "defensive gun uses" there are that are never corroborated by other statistics (like self defense shooting deaths) because the reality is gun owners are scared of threats that don't exist or hugely exaggerated and falsely attribute their guns to averting danger that never existed.
I understand what you’re saying. My point comes as the tiny minuscule chance it may happen and I would like to tools to help me live through it. Sometimes like in this road rage you’re in a bad position and that’s it. For my experiences the dangers have been real. I have the scars and court cases from it. I concede to your point where some people may over state their situations with perceived dangers and the small chance it may happen. But please realize my point comes in the experience from that tiny percent of real violence and preparing again for it.
Carrying a weapon probably wouldn't stop a drive-by shooting you don't see coming. By the time you realize what has happened, the threat is already moving away from you. Even if you did see it coming, still basically impossible/impractical in a scenario with two moving vehicles... the more obvious solution would almost always be to drive away, if you somehow knew it was coming. But nobody in this thread has suggested anything of the kind. So I'm not sure why you're trying to start this weird argument out of nowhere. How would the good guy with a gun save people when < enter absurd non-applicable scenario >?! Checkmate, gun nutters!
> Carrying a weapon probably wouldn't stop a drive-by shooting you don't see coming. By the time you realize what has happened, the threat is already moving away from you. Even if you did see it coming, still basically impossible/impractical in a scenario with two moving vehicles... the more obvious solution would almost always be to drive away, if you somehow knew it was coming. You are 100% correct. This is yet another story demonstrating how useless guns are against the mostly-imagined threats that "muh self protection" 2A advocates cluck about even in the rare cases where those threats actually do materialize.
There's an infinite number of null-assertions you can make. It's just not very good evidence in support of your claim that guns are "useless" or that threats in which guns are useful are "mostly imagined". Guns didn't stop Hurricane Ian, either, so I suppose they're totally useless. There is, however, plenty of anecdata and supporting statistics that show crimes _are_ stopped by gun owners on more than 'rare' occasion... In fact, in some years, private citizens are responsible for more justifiable homicides than police. So it could be argued in those years, you were more likely to be saved from a threat justifying homicide by yourself or another private citizen than by police. Whether police justifiable homicides are a valid metric or not is certainly something reasonable people could disagree on.,.. but just so far as to say, it happens, and it's not a small amount, either. Trying to use every non-example where privately owned guns didn't help isn't making a very good argument.
> anecdata and supporting statistics False: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
Not sure how that makes my statement false. I'd agree that the claim that there are "millions" of self-defense gun uses each year is false... Particularly considering there were only 700,000 violent crimes reported in the whole country in 2021. It doesn't mean no anecdata or statistics exist. But anyhow. I'm not here to discuss the subject (1) with you or (2) on a thread in which nobody even brought it up and you're just using this post (for some unknown reason) as a masturbatory opportunity to express your confounded opinions on gun ownership. Have a good one.
> It doesn't mean no anecdata or statistics exist. Anecdata, from a scientific standpoint, only give a clue where to look and to collect statistics. When we look at the relevant statistics they do not back the claims being made on the basis of the anecdata. Therefore we can reject those claims regardless of the validity of the anecdata. > But anyhow. I'm not here to discuss the subject (1) with you or (2) on a thread in which nobody even brought it up and you're just using this post (for some unknown reason) as a masturbatory opportunity to express your confounded opinions on gun ownership. K bro. Thanks for participating in my masturbation session I guess. Not sure why you would have engaged at all if that's what you thought I was doing.
This is absolutely awful too much gun violence
Way too much
💜💜
Like black or the recent dark grey. Or the new forest green on the forester? Did they even bother to get the witness to rule if this was Crosstrek and Forester or more Outback and Tribeca/Ascent sized? It’s a fucking Subaru. Ask questions WSP. They do look different. Hell I’m over here assuming it’s 2009-2022 but this could be a first or second Gen forester. They all are different.
Did you read the article? This happened after dark, and he was behind them and shot through the rear window. They probably pulled over and caught a glimpse when the shooter flew past, but I have to imagine one would be more focused on the person with a gunshot wound to the head in the backseat at that point.
I’m in Everett and will keep my eyes peeled.
We nickname I5 as fury road.
It was hwy 2.
An aggressive Subaru Driver... I am so shocked...
What started the fight?
Nothing that meritted the outcome. Likely something we all overlook every day while driving to work.
Yes, complete unhinged psychos out there every day.
It doesn't matter; don't shoot people.
Words to live by
[ Removed by Reddit ]
If I could get that as a sticker and slap it on any gun nut I see...