Tuesday’s column: Not your grandfather’s BB gun
Perhaps you’ve never heard of the Benjamin Rogue .357-caliber hunting rifle.
With an adjustable stock, a shrouded barrel and a pistol grip, it’s an intimidating weapon. Fearsome, even. It looks kind of like something commandos might carry.
If your aim is good, that $1,299 rifle will drop a wild boar at 50 yards. It fires a big-bore lead pellet at 900 feet per second.
Now, thanks to a new law by the Virginia General Assembly, it’s fully legal to target practice with that sucker in your own back yard. Even if you live on a postage-stamp-size plot of land in a city, like me.
You see, the Rogue is an air rifle, rather than a firearm. And this year, the General Assembly passed a law that basically says local governments must allow the firing of all air guns on private property. It took effect Friday.
As you can imagine, certain people in the city are unhappy about it. One is Roanoke Police Chief Chris Perkins, whose department is still trying to solve an air gun shooting spree that shattered 59 car windows earlier this year.
Except for target ranges, the city has banned the firing of air guns since 1909, City Attorney Bill Hackworth told me.
The Roanoke City Council pitched a fit about this new state law a couple of weeks ago. At today’s meeting, its members will be in the uncomfortable position of voting to rewrite the sensible old ban so it will conform to the ridiculous new law. (The council will also take up a resolution urging the General Assembly to repeal it.)
The state bill was sponsored by Sen. Roscoe Reynolds, D-Henry County. Every state lawmaker from the Roanoke Valley voted for it. Last week, I tried to find out why.
“I don’t recall there was much opposition,” said Sen. John Edwards, D-Roanoke, a former vice mayor of the city. “The impression I had is that they’re [pneumatic weapons] not that dangerous. Nobody from the local government lobbied against it, that I recall.”
But there was debate on the Senate floor. It was led by Sen. Dave Marsden, D-Fairfax County.
He specifically warned his colleagues that pneumatic weapons have moved way beyond the days when they were limited to BB guns advertised on the back of comic books. The worst damage those could do was shoot out some kid’s eye.
From 1990 to 2000, Marsden argued, the Consumer Product Safety Commission tallied 39 U.S. deaths from pneumatic weapons. Of those, 32 were children under age 15. The Senate passed the bill anyway, 25-14.
When I asked Edwards about this, he said he would be inclined to vote for any bill sponsored by Reynolds that first passed a Senate committee. (This one made it through the Committee on Local Government by a vote of 9-6.)
“Roscoe’s a pretty decent guy. That probably had some influence,” Edwards said.
Sen. Ralph Smith, R-Botetourt County, voted for the bill because it facilitates practice for kids who will one day graduate to real guns.
“I would rather a young person get experience with a less lethal weapon than a firearm,” Smith explained.
He allowed that the back yard of a town house, or a condo or a home in Old Southwest might be a less-than-ideal place for such practice.
Del. Onzlee Ware, D-Roanoke, did not return my phone calls. Perhaps he was on a first-class junket to Paris touring uranium mines. (Just kidding — that was last summer.) Del. Greg Habeeb, R-Salem, didn’t return my call either.
It’s true that, as Smith pointed out, the vast majority of air guns are not deadly weapons like the Benjamin Rogue .357-caliber rifle.
But as technology advances, an increasing number are, and the law makes no distinction. The excuses I heard justifying votes for it suggest our lawmakers didn’t fully comprehend the implications of their actions.
It’s oddly reminiscent of a couple of years ago, when the General Assembly approved a dopey law mandating that people who had watched a one-hour, online handgun training video were qualified for permits to carry concealed firearms.
That meant almost any adult could get a gun permit without ever having touched a handgun in their life, so long as they’re not a felon or a dope fiend.
It remains on the books.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the General Assembly to backtrack on this one, either.
July 5, 2011 - 8:39 AM
vewy vewy quiet. dem groudhoggies are gonna gets it! Thanks for the tip on the Benjamin Rogue .357-caliber hunting rifle!
When I was a kid, we played with bbguns but they were the old one pump type. I was shot in the hand and in the butt (by my now dentist). I’m glad it wasn’t one of the Rogue rifles.
The sky is falling again? Last year everyone who went to go eat had the chance of getting shot by a CCW who was eating with the family.
This year the deadly and dangerous Rogue, which just came out and I doubt if there is one in Roanoke anywhere. Throw in the $1,300 price tag and I really don’t think you have too much to worry about.
Someone might be shooting a Walmart special Crosman that shoots a .177 pellet or .22 pellet at 600 – 700 fps though. (don’t believe the hype on most FPS counts though) Walmart even sells a trap that will stop my .22 pellet at around 800 FPS dead in it’s tracks.
Some areas in the US have High School Air Gun teams. A lot of the time they even shoot in the GYM!!! Scary huh? (sarcasm) Too bad we don’t have that around here, sure this Blog would just love that.
Oops. Starts shipping on July 20, wow Roanoke is in danger and it is not even on the shelf yet….
http://www.pyramydair.com/s/m/Benjamin_Rogue_ePCP_Air_Rifle/2399
“If your aim is good, that $1,299 rifle will drop a wild boar at 50 yards. It fires a big-bore lead pellet at 900 feet per second.” This is a crock. Very few firearms can do this. However, it will drop a man at 50 yds. This air rifle has ballistics that mirror a 38 special. No sane person would hunt a boar with a 38 sp. Dan, you had point to make. And you didn’t have to exagerate to make it.
While the price of this weapon seems prohibitive, and I admit to being a gun nut, there maybe should have been an exception to air guns like this one.
Dan — After I pointed you to the Pyramyd Air site my money was on your picking on the Rouge for this column, though I gave a 5 to 1 odds you might go for one of the less expensive Sam Yang big bore air rifles.
If you have any interest in shooting the kind of regular air gun that us regular air gun nuts actually own and would shoot in the city, let me know. I’ve got a few that we can plink with in my newly set-up, super-safe, 25-yard backyard range.
If any of your readers wish to read some rational thoughts on this issue, I encourage them to visit my blog http://blogs.roanoke.com/wildlife/.
I predicted this column was coming and I knew Dan would not disappoint.
It took effect July 1. And today is July 5.
And not one incident so far. Gee, the sun rose after all.
Wow!
“If you have any interest in shooting the kind of regular air gun that us regular air gun nuts actually own and would shoot in the city, let me know. I’ve got a few that we can plink with in my newly set-up, super-safe, 25-yard backyard range.”
If Dan’s not interested, I am! Sounds fun! (and safe)
While I can understand some of the concern since there are several models of pneumatic weapons that can pack a lethal punch to them, I believe the approach taken in putting the column together does not help make the point. Fact is, that .357 rifle is completely out of the price range for a lot of people, even enthusiasts. A better example would have been the type of air rifle I own, a .177 caliber break-action rifle with scope from Crosman, the same maker of that .357. It has up to a 1200 fps muzzle speed, and depending on the type of pellet chosen can easily kill small and medium-sized game including groundhogs, and could do a great deal of damage if fired at a person. And I got mine at Walmart for under $125, and you can get a couple hundred pellets for under $5.
But I suppose that doesn’t make for good histrionics for a column though. But mentioning an extreme example of an air gun that fires a large pellet that could take down a person easily does, even if it’s not yet on sale and far more expensive than several traditional firearms, including Glock handguns and dozens of traditional hunting rifles.
We bought a pellet trap that we now set in our yard and use for target practice. It’s a lot of fun, my wife and I both enjoy shooting. And despite the dozens of rounds we’ve fired since the new law passed and the hundreds of rounds of traditional firearms that our neighbors have fired through the years, I’ve never once felt unsafe where we live…people practice a great deal of safety and care when using their firearms. I have a bigger concern of mowing my yard and being hit by a speeding driver.
That all said, perhaps the law should have been written to only permit pneumatic weapons of .177 caliber and smaller sizes. That would make more sense, but since when were laws ever written to make sense?
At a mere $1,200 every dad in town is going to buy each one of his kids one of those air guns! They will be everywhere!
Oh no! Virginians can use BB guns at home safely! It’s the end of the world as we know it! I can’t wait till a few more Dem VA senators get booted out of office this November. Then more of the nonsense anti gun laws can be fixed and replaced with common sense measures.
Dan, Dan, Dan,
Here we just celebrated the 4th and you want to take away the freedom of responsible folk to safely practice freedom on their own property.
What happened to your, “I’m not anti-gun. I just think CHP’s should….”?
If your lot is too small for you to safely to take “reasonable care to prevent a projectile from crossing the bounds of the property”, then take your Benjamin Rogue .357-caliber or other any other pneumatic guns somewhere else to shoot it/them. Don’t restrict the freedom of responsible folk who can take “reasonable care to prevent a projectile from crossing the bounds of the property”
If you can’t assure that minors will only use your pneumatic guns “under direct supervision of a parent, guardian, Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps instructor, or a certified instructor” then as a responsible citizen do not buy one.
How can you equate the illegal “shattered 59 car windows earlier this year” with this law? Shooting out someone else’s car windows was illegal then. It is still illegal. This law has no bearing on illegally shooting of car windows.
Your thinking is akin to linking illegal / irresponsible drunk driving with all drivers.
Or do you think those windows were shot “”under direct supervision of a parent, guardian, Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps instructor, or a certified instructor”?
Or do you think the cars were moved to someone’s private property, shot, then returned?
Here is the link where I correctly predicted almost 2 weeks ago that Dan would write this column today. Post #11 I believe.
http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2011/06/alleged-u-s-navy-vets-scammer-skedded-for-trial-today-in-ohio/
It is a broken and predictable record and Dan plays like a cheap fiddle. It was too easy.
It appears that VT Hokie opened the Italics tag without closing it.
Let me see if this works! Hmm Did it work? It should!
Welcome Back, Pres. VC!
To each his own when it comes to shooting, but as for me, $1200 will buy a mighty nice military surplus M1 Garand. You can hunt wild hogs with it, (or pretty much anything else) you can shoot at extreme long-distance targets and enjoy unbelievable accuracy with it’s open sights.
Not so much in town though.
If $1200 is the budget, just keep a bb gun for plinking around the yard, and spend the remaining $1000 on a good rifle.
@ Mark Taylor – good article. You will have to forgive Dan for focusing on the Rogue..he gets a little excited on the subject of guns.
Good luck with that plan Eric #11. Did you conveniently ignore this part? “The state bill was sponsored by Sen. Roscoe Reynolds, D-Henry County. Every state lawmaker from the Roanoke Valley voted for it“. INCLUDING the Dems. Maybe you don’t know as much as you think you know about Gun laws or Democrats.
Dave H, the only problem I have is that leaving some of the excuses for parents I have seen “in charge” of that “responsibility” thing backfires all too often. I have no problem whatsoever with a responsible, competent firearm or pneumatic gun owner shooting or carrying a weapon, it is the fact that so many get to “self-certify” that “responsible” and “competent” part that I have a problem with.
I hadn’t noticed the stories about the new law until BobH (and several other posters here) brought it up.
BobH, thank you for the idea!
You would have thought the Gun Show was coming to town? Oh,I forgot, they were just here and bet they will be back soon!
I agree with OJ. The law, if it had to be enacted, should have been limited to guns that fire .177-caliber pellets.
Voting for it were the same politicians who usually favor government that’s closest to the people.
In this case, they removed power from government that is closer to the people.
Hmmm…I spent several hour yesterday shooting my air rifle and didn’t manage to put anyone’s eye out, cause mass bloodshed, break any windows, or damage any vehicles.
From the liberal viewpoint, surely such a thing is impossible!!!
This column was totally predictable…
Dan,
If you were Pinnochio your nose would be growing.
RTEB already did an op-ed on this a while back. It was also all over the local news.
You don’t live in a cave do you? You do read the paper that pays your salary don’t you?
You are in the NEWS business aren’t you?
And you are saying you didn’t know about this until my 6-22 post on it?
That horn in the background is the truth detector on your today post!
Michael, congrats!
Thank you again for the suggestion, Bob H.
SOOOOO…..I guess the comments didn’t flood in like you expected huh Dan? Well I guess they did, they just weren’t the type you were hoping for. You can only beat your little drum to the same boring beat for so long before you become white noise. Kind of like PETA.
And before you bother to respond with some wit-less comment. I and most of the others posted here just to throw it in your face, not because you moved us.
Brian, thank you for reading my column and paying attention.
I predict, in the near future, someone (i.e. a Liberal who hates guns)will make a false claim concerning damage or injury as a result of someone legally shooting their air rifle in the back yard.
Dan, of course, will be all over it.
The General Assembly continues to take zoning and taxing authority away from local elected officials while forcing more mandates on them and reducing funding for those mandates. The governments closest to the people are being eroded exponentially.
Actually, Michael, my thoughts are trained these days more on how guns can be used in art. Stay tuned on that!
For someone who proclaims to not be anti-gun, explain to me how an inantimate object can be either intimidating or fearsome. Regardless of an adjustable stock, pistol grip, or shrouded barrel (none of which impact any operational aspect of the weapon compared to an old style wooden stock rifle), the object will do nothing but lay there until a PERSON picks it up. Any element of intimidation or fearsome would be the result of the actions of the person and not the accessories on the weapon.
I can just hear Dan now, “Oh no, it’s the intimadating and fearsome Red Ryder carbine action two hundred shot range model air rifle with compass in the stock!!!” The horror!!! Dan, you might want to stay away from these menacing weapons…you’ll shoot your eye out.
Another boring gun thread. All you have to do is mention a new nutty gun law and all the NRA nuts start foaming at the month and and screaming to the heavens in the dreadful fear, fomented by the arms industry and their puppet the NRA because they are afraid their lethal toys might somehow be stripped from their “cold dead hands”. That’s what is predictable.
dave is largely correct.
What the “nuts” who are “foaming” (his terminology, not mine) don’t understand is that they’re pawns of the gun-manufacturing industry. Many of them actually pay annual dues (the NRA membership fee) for the privilege of serving as pawns. To the industry, it’s all about the almighty dollar. They have tricked the “nuts” into believing it’s about “rights.”
“Voting for it were the same politicians who usually favor government that’s closest to the people.”
Bingo, Dan! Name them please.
“[it’s all about the almighty dollar. They have tricked the “nuts” into believing it’s about “rights.”]”
I thought we were talking about guns. When did the topic change to unions?
I thought we were talking about guns. When did the topic change to unions?
Comment by Chuck — July 5, 2011 @ 8:17 pm
Most U.S. gun manufacturers are non-union shops having been moved to the south. So Chucky Boy, this isn’t about unions. Get over it!!!
25.dave is largely correct.
What the “nuts” who are “foaming” (his terminology, not mine) don’t understand is that they’re pawns of the gun-manufacturing industry. Many of them actually pay annual dues (the NRA membership fee) for the privilege of serving as pawns. To the industry, it’s all about the almighty dollar. They have tricked the “nuts” into believing it’s about “rights.”
Comment by Dan Casey — July 5, 2011 @ 7:04 pm
—————————-
You don’t understand that you’re a “nut” and “pawn” to the alcohol industry. They have tricked you into accepting all of the drunk driving deaths, underage drinking, and alcoholism social ills so that you can have your evil intoxication. You even pay higher insurance premiums and healthcare costs to spend money on overpriced alcohol in public endangering so many people. And then you say that non-drinking responsible gun owners should not be able to carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol so that the irresponsible drinkers can get hammered. It’s all about money. And you don’t even realize you’ve been duped.
See, I can just as easily insult your intelligence by calling you a pwn and not even realizing you been tricked with regards to something that you do and I do not. How about them apples?
I’ve seen lawnmowers launch rocks 50 yards and break windows. BAN ALL LAWNMOWERS!!!
Oh, and ban all squirt guns too. Water under enough pressure can cut through steel. NO PRESSURE WASHERS in town either.
And lets take all of the sling shots too.
And make it a felony for a kid to throw a rock with his hand.
Anything else we need protection from?
Does everyone else here see italics? I mean… I don’t mind – the italics are kinda’ nice and all… but if it’s just me, I need to make an appointment with the eye doctor!
“The General Assembly continues to take zoning and taxing authority away from local elected officials while forcing more mandates on them and reducing funding for those mandates. The governments closest to the people are being eroded exponentially.”
I knew it wasn’t just me! Thanks poster Rick!
Dan, you act as if this new Rogue .357 that isn’t even available to the public yet is something brand new. This is actually very old news.
Air guns represent the oldest pneumatic technology. The oldest existing mechanical air gun, a bellows air gun dating back to about 1580, is in the Livrustkammaren Museum in Stockholm. This is the timeline most historians peg as the beginning of the modern air gun.
In the 17th century, air guns, in calibers .30–.51, were used to hunt big game deer and wild boar. These air rifles were charged using a pump to fill an air reservoir and gave velocities from 650–1,000 feet per second. They were also used in warfare; the most famous example is the Girandoni Military Repeating Air rifle.
Lewis and Clark used a Girandoni repeating air rifle on their expedition in 1804.
While it may not be “Your Grandfather’s BB gun”, it is more akin to your great, great, great grandfather’s BB gun.
I see italics too, EofH…
Count me in as one of those liberal gun haters… If I thought my neighbors were target shooting in their backyards I’d kick up more of stink about this. As it is, I’ll have to leave that to the residents of those neighborhoods where cars are parked in the front yard, KFC buckets and PBR cans are spilling into the alley and tattered 70′s sofas are used as patio furniture.
Seriously, is there no limit to the ridiculous gun laws that we will allow? And who is kidding who… those representatives are all bought by the NRA… in one way or another.
So what you all are saying, in a nut shell is that unless there is massive eye loss, mass bloodshed, massive unintentional vandalism and mayhem, it is really no big deal that people are shooting relatively powerful little pellets in close proximity with pets, windows, vehicles and people. So, basically the same argument you accuse us of using, in reverse? I am sorry but when a nation bases policy and laws on only massive damage mattering, the issue is lost. At least if some fool in the neighborhood is shooting a gun, we have fair warning to get indoors. As someone who has had windows broken by a BB Gun, I am cannot wish you happy shooting.
“As you can imagine, certain people in the city are unhappy about it. One is Roanoke Police Chief Chris Perkins, whose department is still trying to solve an air gun shooting spree that shattered 59 car windows earlier this year.”
I can imagine that if firing air guns were illegal, they would have cracked the case by now?
“It’s oddly reminiscent of a couple of years ago, when the General Assembly approved a dopey law mandating that people who had watched a one-hour, online handgun training video were qualified for permits to carry concealed firearms.”
You still believe this, eh?
Jack,
I can imagine: now that target practice with airguns is legal, those window shattering vandals will now have much better aim!
@#43 “As it is, I’ll have to leave that to the residents of those neighborhoods where cars are parked in the front yard, KFC buckets and PBR cans are spilling into the alley and tattered 70′s sofas are used as patio furniture.”
I would be reluctant to count those residents among people that can afford a $1,200 rifle.
To a self-described “liberal gun hater”, aren’t all laws that permit any gun ownership at all, period, ridiculous?
“because they are afraid their lethal toys might somehow be stripped from their “cold dead hands”.”
A bow and arrow is a lethal toy. If you are practicing archery and an arrow goes astray someone could be injured or killed. It’s a potentially deadly projectile that can inflict harm from a distance. It’s original purpose was also to kill. No one protests the sport of archery though.
I personally have no love for the NRA. I cancelled my membership over a year ago with zero regrets.
That doesn’t I disagree with their positions on all issues, I just don’t like the way they do things. But just because you don’t like the way they do things, that doesn’t make the Brady Campaign rhetoric the gospel. They play political games too. And a lot of their propaganda is based on misleading data and false information. If you blindly believe all of their talking points, you are just as much of a puppet.
Re: #39
Yup.
We had this sort of thing happen before. I typed “</b." rather than "” and every comment in the thread from there on awas in BOLD.
I predicted that BobH would predict that Dan would write column about this. Bob H sure is reading Dan a lot these days.
VTHokie
I don’t blindly accept anyone’s statistics. I don’t personally own guns. I have in the past. I’m not in favor of banning guns or taking away people’s constitutional rights to own them. But I do believe that there should be rationality and common sense applied to gun ownership. I believe
that people, through their government, have the right to establish regulations over guns, their use, and when it is appropriate for them to be used and/or carried. But let’s face it. Ownership of a handgun, possession of it, and carrying it in public places is for one purpose, to kill somebody. Whatever the reason, whatever the justification, that gun serves one purpose, to kill somebody. I belikeve none of us is perfect.
The gun owner with the greatest skills, the best intentions, the mildest manner, the least aggressive personality is still subject to making mistakes, errors of judgment, or just having a bad moment out of charcter.
At that point, when he is carrying that gun in a public place, he becomes a danger to the people around him.I don’t care if its masses, large numbers, or just 1 or 2 people. I don’t care if it happens every dasy, or once a week, or once a month, or once a year. Once is too much. So own your guns. Keep them at home in a safe place. If you’re a hunter, use them appropriately and learn to do it responsibly. But you don’t own that Glock, or that 38 special, or that 357 magnum for hunting. You own it because you want to be ready and able to kll somebody. You can’t sugarcoat that and that is why I no longer own guns.
VT Hokie writes: “To a self-described “liberal gun hater”, aren’t all laws that permit any gun ownership at all, period, ridiculous?”
Why yes, they are… to a degree.
I think there is a place, in our society, for gun sports and gun ownership for protection… but the current out-of-control mass proliferation and lax controls, dangerous technological advances, and covetous attitudes regarding guns is, yes… ridiculous.
45. Comment by dave — July 6, 2011 @ 1:59 pm
dave, the same could be said about you driving your car…a danger to everyone around you.
Your comment that a person owns a handgun because they want to kill someone shows your ignorance. You own a handgun to protect yourself and your family. The law regarding use of lethal force in VA says your defense must be commensurate to the level of force (lethal) and you apply that force only to the extent that the threat is stopped. No more. Handguns are used to stop an attack without a shot being fired way more often than when shots are fired. Also consider that 85% of people shot survive. Your statement is more emotion than fact or statistic.
I’ve had numerous handguns for 20+ years and neither they nor I have ever killed a person and I pray I’m never in such a position. I also take appropriate measures to avoid such situations. And I actually have one handgun that I hunt groundhogs with (a semiauto 9mm).
Honestly, if you are the type of person that would have shot someone becuase you were having a bad day, then I applaud your decision to dispose of your firearms. I’ll keep mine. Freedom works that way, we can each choose freely what is or is not right for us.
I think there is a place, in our society, for gun sports and gun ownership for protection… but the current out-of-control mass proliferation and lax controls, dangerous technological advances, and covetous attitudes regarding guns is, yes… ridiculous.
Comment by Lynda K — July 6, 2011 @ 2:24 pm
————–
Lynda K, the same could be said about cars, alcohol, and prescription drugs. All representing more deaths and social issues than firearms.
o\!/o… Your use of alcohol, prescription and illegal drugs does not endanger my life, except in the case of your driving while under the influence and there are laws against that.
We’ve gone down the cars vs guns as killers road. It’s a stupid argument. Cars are a nessesity, guns are not.
I don’t take my car out on the road or drive it up to your house to kill you with it. I don’t come after you with a bottle of alcohol to kill you with it. I don’t come at you with my vial of prescription pills as a weapon. But if I pull out my gun and point it at you, I better be ready to kill you because when I fire it that’s the likely outcome. That old bromide about cars are more dangerous than guns is a laod of bushwa. How many
times is a car used as a murder weapon?. Iwouldn’t consider myself the kind of person who would lose it after a bad day at work and go home to shoot somebody. Neither did a half dozen people I have known in my lifetime who did just that or who lost it because they found out their wife or husband was seeing someone else, or who got mad at somebody who cut them off on the highway and jumped out of the car to go challenge them, or who lost it because some drunk in a bar insulted their wife or girlfriend. People do it every day, and having a gun handy just increases the tendency toturn stupidity into tragedy.
Case in point:
http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/292142
@ 49. Comment by Lynda K — July 6, 2011 @ 8:12 pm
———————
There are laws against murder too…and they don’t prevent it. Alcohol, prescription and illegal drugs fuel lots of crime and death. Whether it is the criminals breaking into houses for script drugs or to steal to feed their habit. They all are a danger to you one way or another.
Cars are not a necessity. Man has traveled the face of the earth for millions of years without them until only the last 100 or so years. You (meaning society)accept the death rate of cars for the convenience…just like you accept the death rate of alcohol.
Guns were developed 500 years before cars…if necessity is indeed the mother of all invention, then it would appear guns were more a necessity than cars.
@51. Lynda, your case in point example describes a 17 year old having and firing a gun at 1:30am as a group of 4 people attack someone. It is illegal for a 17 year old to buy or own a gun just like it is illegal for him to shoot at someone….none of those existing laws stopped the crime. Just like more strict gun laws for people like me (law-abiding, responsible, educated, safety conscious) would not have stopped this 17 year old. Perhaps if their victim had a CHP and a handgun he could have defended himself (although I have to wonder if anyone out and about at 1:30am wasn’t up to something no good anyway).
@ 50 dave,
Plenty of people commit murder, homicide, manslaughter with motor vehicles. Many on purpose, many not. I know a person heading to prison for the umteenth time on his 7th DWI who didn’t mean to kill the person he hit…and 6 times in jail didn’t prevent it any more than his not having a license. I would consider that murder.
Alcohol and cars kill more people than handguns. Known fact.
85% of gunshot victims survive. Known fact.
You can’t fix human violence by taking guns out of the hands of responsible law-abiding people. All you do is leave them sitting ducks. Bad people will do bad things regardless of how many laws you pass. That’s just the human condition.