Angry DC Cab Driver Tries Intimidation with Gun Fire

[fightthegoodfightnow]

Yet another reason why DC gun law is appropriate. No doubt some will think the Second Amendment protects this lunacy:

NORTHEAST WASHINGTON
Cabdriver Is Charged After Firing Handgun During Fare Dispute
By Clarence Williams and Martin Weil
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 5, 2007; Page C07

A dispute over a fare between a D.C. cabdriver and his passenger erupted in gunfire yesterday, police said. Nobody was injured, but the driver was arrested and charged, police said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/04/AR2007080401714.html

[Ian David]

1. Money causes disputes. Guns end disputes. Problem? n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

2. Some of Us Think Arguments Should Not Be Settled with who has a Gun

......and who doesn't.

That is EXACTLY the problem with the gun enthusiasts. Many, if not most, think this type of behavior is appropriate. It is not. The public is not served by a 'wild west' mentality. Innocent people could be killed or shot for nothing more than a $20 cab fare. Ridiculous.

[Ian David]

3. Well, unfortunately it's illegal in my state to own a blade over 6 inches long...

so we can't settle things like gentlemen with swords anymore.



What is this world coming to?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

4. Is that a Gentleman in Drag?

Got to love Massachusetts!!!

[benEzra]

7. What "gun enthusiasts" think arguments should be settled with guns?

Some of Us Think Arguments Should Not Be Settled with who has a Gun and who doesn't.

That is EXACTLY the problem with the gun enthusiasts. Many, if not most, think this type of behavior is appropriate. It is not. The public is not served by a 'wild west' mentality. Innocent people could be killed or shot for nothing more than a $20 cab fare. Ridiculous.

What "gun enthusiasts" think arguments should be settled with guns?

I'm licensed to carry a weapon. The only "argument" I'd consider pulling a gun to resolve would be one in which somebody wanted to subject me or my family to death, serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony, which I do reserve the right to dissent from.

I don't know any gun enthusiast that would condone firing a warning shot because somebody won't pay you. That's aggravated assault, not self-defense, and anyone with half a brain (apparently not including the cabbie) knows that. And if you do the math, losing a $20 fare is a lot cheaper than the $20,000 to $50,000 in legal bills this clown will be facing, not to mention the loss of his career while he chills out in prison.

FWIW, I don't see how this exactly props up the D.C. law. It's not possible to make possession of that gun by the cabdriver any more illegal than it already is...but at least here in NC, a cabdriver wanting to carry a gun would have the option of doing it legally, which (here) involves mandatory training in self-defense law, an FBI fingerprint check, federal and state criminal records checks, a mental health records check, and proficiency testing.

[Howzit]

8. Please supply evidence to back up this statement:

Please supply evidence to back up this statement: "That is EXACTLY the problem with the gun enthusiasts. Many, if not most, think this type of behavior is appropriate."

Handguns are defensive tools, to be produced only once a threat to one's life has been demonstrated or is imminent. They are not for settling matters appropriate to a small claims court, let alone $20.

You are also getting mixed up about what is at stake. DC residents that have not disqualified themselves (prior felonies for example) should be allowed to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. Carrying guns concealed on the street requires a higher level of scrutiny in most states and no one is arguing that any old DC resident should be allowed to carry on the street without a carry permit.

The cab driver was almost certainly illegally carrying the gun, which he fired illegally, even if his life had been in danger, in this instance, let alone for $20.

What this little event demonstrates is that those most likely to fire a gun over a trivial matter are the same people likely to ignore laws that would prevent them from carrying guns on the street. In other words, criminals (carrying a concealed weapons without a permit) are likely to ignore multiple laws, up to and including firing their guns at people and breaking several more laws in doing that, including laws against murder.

[krispos42]

5. Whether or not the gun was legal, it was used illegally

The driver was arrested and charged appropriately, I think.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

6. True

.......but the response doesn't address the fundamental risks and costs we as a nation are increasingly facing by a society with easy access to guns that thinks an argument can and should be settled with a gun. The more incidents we have like this, the more risk we face that someone will get killed innocently. Next time, it might be at a gas station.

[Howzit]

10. If these un-social events are becoming more common

If these un-social events are becoming more common (do crime stats support this notion), it is not because guns are more available than they used to be. If anything, guns are less available though legal channels than they used to be (especially true for DC after 1976). So if criminal acts have increased compared to decades ago, it is not because of legal gun availability. I think the average human that lives in areas like DC has become less concerned about the well-being of their fellow human kind than decades ago; and guns have nothing to do with this.

This suggests that new laws to prevent or minimize legal ownership will have little effect. The obvious reason for this is that an illegal black market for guns exist that will not be affected by any new laws, just as it isn't affected by the ban already on the books.

I suspect you don't even consider the lives of people who just want to earn an honest living and who sometimes need a legal means to defend their lives from human predators that invade their homes. If self-defense is not a valid reason to own a gun, then no amount of arguing will convince you that removing guns from the law-abiding allows more victimization to occur.

What are the social mechanisms that motivate so many DC resident to behave like animals? Figure this out and try to fix that.

[Irreverend IX]

9. "No doubt some will think the Second Amendment protects this lunacy"

Is it Unsubstantiated Strawman Day already? I guess I'll accuse you of calling for the internment of RKBA supporters in re-education camps. What do you think about that?

The driver was an idiot and he was rightly arrested and charged. His crime doesn't change the fact that CCW holders tend to be much more law-abiding than the general public and, in some states, have lower arrest rates as a population than police themselves.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

12. I can't decide whether you are raising a Straw Man, or

Suggesting that people in DC are somehow different from the rest of the population in a way that makes them more inclined to violence.