HomeBreaking NewsTwo Proud Gun Nuts Second-Amendment Each Other To Death In Road Rage Incident

Two Proud Gun Nuts Second-Amendment Each Other To Death In Road Rage Incident

Two men are dead in Ionia, Michigan after a road rage incident escalated into a shootout Wednesday. Police say that James Pullum, 43, and Robert Taylor, 56 apparently argued after Taylor became enraged over something that occurred while driving though the details are not clear as to exactly what precipitated the incident.

Witnesses say that Pullum who had his wife and mother in the vehicle with him pulled into the parking lot of a car wash and Taylor who was at the time tailgating him followed him in. Both men exited their vehicles and began to argue as the argument escalated, Taylor pulled his gun and began to fire. Pullum, who was also carrying a gun, drew his and returned fire. Both men apparently died at the scene.

Pullums mother-in-law says that her son-in-law was protecting his family and that he was a “great person, a great family man and a great businessman.” He owned a service station in Ionia. Other details are vague and police say they are having difficulty piecing together what happened since both men are dead. They also said that both men had concealed carry permits and were legally carrying their weapons.

While it may be true — as the NRA says — that a good man with a gun can stop a bad man with a gun, they fail to mention that both may die in the process.

Share on RedditShare on LinkedInDigg thisShare on StumbleUponPin on PinterestShare on TumblrShare on Google+Email this to someonePrint this page

About Bob Cull

I'm retired and live in the Finger Lakes region of Upstate NY. I have strong opinions and my political bent has not changed since I was in high school. Most of my family thinks that I need to find a "real" hobby to fill my time in retirement, but I am content to share my opinions with others and exercise my "right" as a cranky old retired dude to express my views--which are based on many years of real world experience.
  • Sam

    I think it’s WONDERFUL that more idiots are blowing each other’s brains out with guns. It’s the kind of world I dreamed I would live in when I was a little boy and now it’s all come to sanguinary fruition. MORE VIOLENT GUN DEATHS, PLEASE!

  • Pingback: Cars, Guns, and American Fantasies – Dog-Style Word Fu

  • http://VietnamVeteran1965-1969 steven solano

    While it is extremely saddening and tragic for the families of both sides of the now dead human beings, their want to use their choice of weapons ended their short lives in a car wash where the leftover blood could be washed away quickly. We reap what we sow. Live by the sword and die by the sword. This wonderful country is quickly becoming the 2nd OK Corral and as long as gun toters hide behind the 2nd amendment, then expect this type of ugly scenario to only worsen and the NRA and Fox News giving sub zero media attention to this type of gun fetish killing. .

  • Michelle

    Another case of Iraq in America. At least the Iraqis have a good reason to fight for what they believe in, after recent mass shootings in America my it’s time to follow the Australian Model as the American Model is fast failing Americans & we need to ask what are the Australians doing that not working for America. The left wing gun rights lobby are the ones who have the blood of many Americans on their hands. Not Obama!

  • Michael

    Based on the headline, I thought there was going to be some info profiling these people as “gun nuts” due to some 2nd amendment advocacy or at least beyond the fact that they had guns and used them. Instead I just find a sensationalized headline on a propaganda story. Strangely though I can’t find any of these stories anywhere on this site. =[ http://www.easybakegunclub.com/blog/4987/Defensive-Gun-Use-Report—May-2014.html – Aren’t we allowed to acknowledge that guns save lives every day?

    • ABC

      “guns save lives every day?” by defualt guns do certainly NOT save lives everyday. They just maime and kill. That is what they are for. A GUN has NEVER EVER saved a life!

      • http://johnfmayer.wordpress.com johnfmayer

        What an absurd statement, ABC. So you’d disarm our military, our police, our national guard, our forest rangers. Since their guns serve only to maim (no final “e” on maim) we should see that they are no longer permitted to carry them. The fact is, I have saved a life or two myself with guns, and that doesn’t mean that I had to shoot anyone, necessarily. In fact, the media did not cover any of the incidents, though they called for an interview once, which call I did not return. The police took custody of one of the assailants and told me they believed he might be a pervert who’d been breaking into women’s homes in the daytime, calling them at work and describing their bedrooms to them. He also had broken into his ex-girlfriend’s apt. and slashed her clothing, which the officer said was indicative of a homicidal personality. So, I might have prevented more than one death, as is likely the case in many of the incidents reported below and elsewhere (and you’ll not see me quote the Cato institute often). http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense

    • El

      Your source is from “Easy Bake Gun Club.” If that isn’t biased propaganda, I don’t know what is. Also, just because a gun was used in “defense” doesn’t preclude the fact that something else could have been used; for example, the person who took down a Seattle gunman with pepper spray. In Australia, baseball bats save lives. There are defensive knife, tazer, and pepper spray uses too, not just guns. No, I cannot acknowledge that guns save lives every day. They are used far more often to take innocent lives. Guns didn’t save the two officers at a Las Vegas pizzeria nor did they save the gun toter at Walmart but they did kill them.

      • http://johnfmayer.wordpress.com johnfmayer

        The pepper spray probably had very little to do with it. The gunman was tackled while reloading (as was the case in my church, where a gunman entered and opened fire). If you are ever in such a situation I hope you have something more formidable than pepper spray or a tazer to defend yourself with (do NOT count on the fixed electrode type of tazer; I’ve seen men shrug that discomfort off as well). James Bowie did use his knife to kill a man armed with a gun in a darkened room, but most of us are not James Bowie. Guns are NOT used far more often to take innocent lives; you have no basis for that statement. As in my own incident, described above, most defensive uses of guns don’t make the news, but there are plenty that do.

        I’m not familiar with Easy Bake Gun Club, but their data is true or false on its own merits, regardless of their bias.

    • Neil

      Then let’s take the sensationalism out of the headline:

      “Two responsible gun owners shot each other to death as a result of road rage.”

      Now you get to defend against the inference ALL gun owners are a menace to society.

  • Harry Barracuda

    I’m sure the NRA already have two witless rednecks to replace them.

  • Ivan

    The right to protect myself and my loved ones from the monsters in this world should be a God given right, those that give up their right of self protection for a miss perceived gain in security deserve neither. Everywhere that has passed shall issue laws have had a huge reduction in violent primes.
    I am alive today because my mother used a gun to keep a miserable piece of excrement from gaining access to our vehicle. I was six and my brother was an infant on her lap when she drewn down on said excrement as he was beating on windows trying to get at us. I never seen more determination in a womens eyes as in that afternoon as she did her very best protecting her brood. Now let see where this would of gone if my dad didn’t leave her his gun?!!
    To those of you who claim I’m not a man if I carry or it’s a penis substitute…. screw you. You don’t want to carry, then by all means don’t but don’t screw with my right to protect myself and my loved ones.

    • Heywood Jablome

      “Violent Primes”? And isn’t it amazing how every gunnutter has a story like this one? “Mamma’s brood”? “Daddy’s gun”? You’re like a parody of a country music song.

      • ivan

        The prime thing was just word prediction that I didn’t catch. Mamas brood, daddy’s gun?!! Really is that what you got to say?!! What, are we still in junior high? What’s next, you’re going to wait for me by the bicycle racks to beat me up?!! Get a life you moron. If that’s what you’re going with maybe mommy should take your phone away and I just know how you’re looking foward to her spanking those cute little buns of yours.

      • http://johnfmayer.wordpress.com johnfmayer

        You know, a lot of us DO have stories wherein guns were used to protect ourselves and others. That’s, no doubt, one of the things that has confirmed our belief in a gun’s value in perilous situations. Of course, had we HAD no gun we’d just be another victim of robbery, rape or murder. I hope if you are ever in a life-threatening situation someone will be there to come to your rescue, possibly with a gun. Perhaps thereafter you’ll see things differently, as did a friend of mine who told me she’d been against guns until her father visited a new branch bank to make a deposit of coins he’d been saving for her disabled daughter and was slain execution style, along with six other customers and personnel there by bank robbers. A thing like that can change your perspective dramatically.

    • cary breef

      problem is not with the folks that are TRAINED in weapons usage, not just in peaceful, range situations, but when your heart rate is 200bpm, when you are being chased, or shot at, when you are woken up at 3am and hear screams and are in your pajamas. Well trained, daily practiced servicemen and women have trouble aiming well in these situations, so do well trained police , so any gun owner who thinks that when the shit hits the fan the fact that they have a weapon on their side that all will be okay are simply thinking too highly of their own abilities.

      A friend of mine is a former MP, a firearms instructor and has explained in great detail how under the stress of battle or a situation that even at point blank range, experienced shooters often miss – because what happens to your body in those situations is usually beyond the control of most people. The problem with guns is there are way too many floating around, and even good folks end up using them too often by accident, hastily or they get used by another in a bad way, either “borrowed” or stolen. we would not have over 70 guns deaths per day if that were not the case.

      Think about this. Tylenol was recalled when there were UNDER TEN DEATHS TOTAL, the Pinto was recalled with UNDER 20 DEATHS, GM is in BIG TROUBLE WITH 13 DEATHS IN WHAT, TEN YEARS? but EVERY SINGLE DAY, 70 + PEOPLE DIE IN THE USA and nothing is changing, not even common sense background checks or waiting periods, training, gun locks, NOTHING. As far as the mass shootings, more and more of them are folks who want to OVERTHROW THE USA – that is TERRORISM WHAT THEY ARE DOING, TRY TO START A CIVIL WAR, so own your guns, but that doesn’t mean that common sense laws are bad. God does not own or rule the USA, and GUN RIGHTS don’t trump the GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO LIFE. Although right now it sure is seeming to be that way.

      HOW MANY MASS SHOOTINGS IS ENOUGH? What if your family were the victims? or your neighbors or friends? how would you feel then? all the victims are someones relatives, someones neighbors, someones friends. commons sense is what we need not might right to own a weapon trumps your right to live. that is just plain stupid.

    • T M Lynch

      I’ve got no problem with that as long as no one but you dies because if it.

      • ivan

        Why such anger?!! Never in my life have I used a gun illegally. I don’t start trouble with people, don’t road rage, don’t flip people off. I try to help others and I try to be as disarming as possible because I’m big and hairy and I don’t like to make people nervous. In short I’m polite andI don’t start shit.
        So why in the hell should I put myself and my loved ones in danger by not arming myself as well as I can?!! You wish me dead because I care for my safety and of those I love? How dare you!!! You don’t want to carry good for you. Don’t screw with my GOD given right to protect those I love.

        • http://gravatar.com/sallyinmi sallyinmi

          Where in the Bible does God advocate guns? Or violence?

    • http://gravatar.com/sallyinmi sallyinmi

      So, Ivan, you and your mom are in a car with the windows up and a guy is beating on the windows? Why did she not just drive away? Why kill someone?
      And no, I will never carry a gun, nor have one in my home. The only home invasion I know of involved people stealing a guy’s guns. So by all means, advertise your killing toys. But don;t be surprised when someone breaks in to get them, or when a family member kills another…’by accident,’ of course.

    • Neil

      Which of these two with carry permits was the monster?

  • Pingback: Two Proud Gun Nuts - TeakDoor.com - The Thailand Forum

  • jeff

    No, it isn’t at all, unless they’ve linked gun ownership to a genetic mutation. :)

  • http://twitter.com/CrappyCartoons Crappy Cartoons (@CrappyCartoons)

    Stories like this just bring home a point I have been making for quite some time. The NRA has totally stolen the second amendment rights away from us American Citizens.

    READ THE WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!

    Nowhere in the second amendment does it say anything about guns. And yet the power gun lobbies and the manufactures with their big corporate coffers have sold us all a bunch of bull cookies that its all about guns. The truth is that it is about the right to bear arms. AND that should include armored tanks.

    Road rage is a real problem but just look at the scenario and think what would have happened if they had been able to exercise their true constitutional rights and have driven around in armored tanks instead. This story would have turned out a whole lot differently!

    Just another sad example of what happens when our rights keep getting trampled on!

    • http://gravatar.com/sallyinmi sallyinmi

      I want to see you ‘bear a tank.’ Are you in the garage building business? Tanks everywhere? This is not, despite what the NRA thinks, a war zone. I should not be afraid to ride my nike or walk in my own neighborhood.

  • http://happinessdishbestsavouredhot.blogspot.com HappinessSavouredHot

    If neither of them had had a gun, they would probably both still be alive…

  • Well as long as they are just killing each other….

    Isn’t this a fine example of natural selection!

    • https://www.facebook.com/cjames28 Craig James

      yes!

    • ABC

      yes

  • http://gravatar.com/kookla73 kookla73

    As the article says, yes both people could end up dead as happened here. But it fails to mention that the family survived. This could have ended even more tragically. The father is a hero who protected his family.

    • https://www.facebook.com/laurie.moore.5 Laurie Moore

      Neither one of them are “heros”

    • Mark

      You have an odd definition of “hero.” This whole situation could have been avoided by simply walking away. Guns: Giving people the confidence to escalate a volatile situation rather than walking away.

    • edmondwa

      Nonsense. No one was coming AFTER his family, this incident was caused by the raised emotions of the armed men. There are no heroes here.

    • https://www.facebook.com/graham.dempster.3 Graham Dempster

      No heroes here. Two dead dumb guys.

    • Travis

      People who exhibit road rage are heroes?

    • http://panseco69.wordpress.com panseco69

      If neither had guns on them, they would have just beat on each other and lived…

    • bushputz

      The smart thing for Mr. Pullum to do would have been to have his wife or mother dial 911, give the operator their location, heading, license plate and description of their car, along with the same information for Mr. Taylor’s car. Then ask for directions for the nearest police station so they could drive there and deliver Tayor to the waiting officers.
      Instead, Pullum further endangered his family by pulling over and engaging Taylor. These days, you have to assume the other driver is armed, especially if they’re aggressive.

  • Tim Weiss

    I have to assume these were both bad people, citing NRA law #1: bad guy always lose fight with gun, despite what the seemingly kind mother-in-law’s words.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogerwolsey/ rogerwolsey

    As Gandhi put it “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”
    As Jesus put it, “Those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword.”
    As, John von Neumann, put it, “M.A.D. – mutually assured destruction.”

    Roger Wolsey, author, Kissing Fish: christianity for people who don’t like christianity

    • https://www.facebook.com/Stanton5 Stanton Fink

      Of course, the thing about “eye for an eye” or “lex talonis,” was that it was plagiarized from the Code of Hammurabi, which was trying to stamp out the tradition of blood feuds, where one would avenge a wrong (be it theft, murder, insults, looking at each other funny) by slaughtering as many of the offender’s kinsmen as possible, so that the punishment can not be more severe than the wrong done.

      • https://www.facebook.com/lisaahadler Lisa Hadler

        Right…which is why Jesus said,”You have heard it said, ‘An eye for an eye , and a tooth for a tooth; but I say to you, ‘when someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him also the other”.

  • http://[email protected] J D Salinger

    hopefully neither one of them had the opportunity to breed. It would only spoil the gravitas of the Darwin awards

  • GoJo

    People who want a conceal-carry permit obviously intend to use their gun. The assumption that someone with a gun will have the magical ability to exercise superior judgement in a moment of stress is absurd, since they clearly don’t have much judgement to start with. I’m surprised that anyone’s surprised at this.

  • kevin

    no one ever killed anyone else before guns were invented right?… so if guns we’re illegal what stops that guy from stabbing the other one…. wait we should make knives illegal too…. but what if he hit the guy in the head with a hammer…. shoot, i guess hammers should be illegal too.

    • Peter

      kevin, you are so right… who cares that the only purpose of guns is to kill, anything can be abused, so there is no reason to regulate any of it!… Hell, why do we need licenses for cars? Bicycles can kill. Why do we require airline pilots to be licenses? Kites can kill. Until this country recognizes that guns are not the key to reducing death, we will continue to keep arguing this absurd point. Just because every other developed country with strict gun laws has a homicide rate that is minuscule compared to ours, doesn’t prove a thing.

      • gaither

        Peter, I guarantee you he didn’t get this and thinks you are agreeing with him.

      • Bob Dvorak

        Sorry, Kevin, your argument doesn’t work. A knife or a hammer requires that one be up close, or within ten to twenty feet if you’re accurate. This would suggest that the gun is the chicken’s way to settle an argument…

    • njt

      pulling a trigger at a distance is a lot easier than stabbing someone. A fact that is perpetually lost on the pro-gun nuts.

    • hg3300

      guess you never learned that guns are the only things on your list that are MEANT to kill. The other tools you listed have different uses.

    • https://plus.google.com/+WilHutton Wil Hutton

      Yeah, in 2011 496 people were killed with blunt instruments. That’s a whole lot…wait, shit…less than all firearms combined, which were 8,583 people killed. That’s still more than twice the number of people killed using every other means (including hammers). If I look at those statistics, I’m twice as likely to be killed by a firearm than I am murdered by an icepick.

      But, then again, if hammers were so effective at killing people why aren’t more people advocating hammers as defensive weapons?? That’s because guns exist to kill people, and they’re good at it. There’s really no argument about the killing people point either – someone might own a gun for target practice, but that doesn’t change its nature any more than using a hammer to kill someone changes its nature as a tool over a weapon.

      Since guns have much more potential for killing or injuring when used against a person than a hammer – and someone with a gun and a hammer is much more likely to use the gun first – the fuck if we don’t need responsible regulation of the guns over the hammers.

      How is this not common sense, and why do people keep spouting this, “Well, this kills people too!” bullshit?

      • Bobbie Jo Justice

        and 40,000 people die every year in car collisions, so where is the anti car crowd?

        • Your Mama

          Bobbie…Your statement is so ignorant it doesn’t deserve a reply!!

        • https://www.facebook.com/gregory.mead.73 Gregory Mead

          You do realize, don’t you, that cars and their drivers are required to be licensed, don’t you? And that you have to take a test to use one, and that you have to be insured to use it? And that there are many, many safety devices required to be on autos? And that there are many reasons for using one, very few of which involved intentionally injuring or killing someone?

          • http://gravatar.com/leemerrick1 leemerrick1

            Thanks for making the point, Gregory, and so well. You saved me typing something similar.

          • https://www.facebook.com/lisaahadler Lisa Hadler

            And every car must be registered.

    • Craig

      What a ridiculous argument, Kevin. Knives and hammers have uses other than killing other human beings. Pistols are made solely for that purpose. These gentlemen were carrying these weapons just for that purpose. What you may call “protection” or “defense” really means “shoot that bastard before he shoots me.” Without the guns they would have probably went to fists. They would have ended up bruised and embarrassed, not dead and buried.

      What is your real argument to allow everyone to be armed and dangerous in this country? Other than that the Constitution allows it, you got squat. What are the arguments for not taking guns off the streets? What can you say that justifies the daily death toll in this country. Other than “Second Amendment” or “Freedom” you can make no rational argument. What words do you use to tell yourself that these killings are the price for freedom, when the rest of teh developed world has rejected that argument. The NRA is a gun manufacturers lobby, not a gun owners group. They want only to sell more products, regardless of the cost to society.

      My arguments against the freely available guns are buried in Columbine, Aurora. Santa Barbara, Newtown, Fort Hood, and countless other death venues across the country. This is madness. We are living in dystopia when we allow this to continue.

    • vincent bruce

      u r stoopid. 2 ez 2 pull a trigger. DUH!~

    • http://ajbeamish.wordpress.com Aj b33m3R

      I was looking for a straw, man. Thank you.

    • Gabe

      I’d say the main difference is that if two men were trying to stab each other other to death as opposed to shooting at each other, you run less of a risk of hitting an innocent bystander who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Pop off 5 shots out of a pistol in a public setting and you may not even hit your target. Instead, you his a little child walking across the street with their mother.

    • kevin’s dad

      You are an idiot. Nobody is trying to ban guns… and it’s not even the point of this article. This inane logic that keeps getting used comparing a gun to a hammer to a spoon to a car is flawed logic, because nobody is trying to take your guns away… But proper time and place dude. To your own point, if he pulled out a hammer… there wouldn’t be two dead idiots right now… Maybe one injured one. But they’d probably both be living. This isn’t the wild west, you want to protect your home and family, fine. Leave the gun at home. You don’t use it to settle disputes. We employee police officers and military protect us. They get substantial training and a nifty uniform that allows us to figure out whether or not he is supposed to be a “bad” guy or a “good” guy. I’m an actually gun owner and hobbyist and even I think these two and idiots like you who make this whole issue about the wrong things are exactly the problem with gun violence in America. Common sense has gone out the window. Even the NRA used to be very intolerant of this sort of behavior.

    • Greg Benson

      If guns “we’re” illegal, people would have to use less efficient tools for killing each other. That means fewer people die violently. That’s what we all want, right? Right??

      • ZaZa

        Yep, make guns illegal, it’s working wonders with illegal drugs and worked really well with alcohol during prohibition.

    • Bob K

      Well, hammers require at least some courage. You have to get close enough to possibly be overcome and harmed yourself. A gun is the choice of the coward. I say, disarm cowards and let the brave men catty hammers. Or perhaps I would if I didn’t have a gun myself, but I don’t need to carry it around to bolster my inferiority complex.

    • Joshua

      Hey Kevin, How many children would have died in CT. if a hammer had been the weapon? Maybe someone could have brought him down, but it was not a hammer was it Kevin? You are entitled to your opinion. Here is my opinion of you, you are not a smart person.

  • https://www.facebook.com/mscarpiello Mike Scarpiello

    I could not be happier about this.

  • joe

    As a CHL holder you have a greater responsibility for self control. Do everything in your power to leave the situation. Drive away, walk away, apologize, take the high road. Just because you are carrying that doesn’t make you immune from being on the busiess end of another person carrying (legally our otherwise) or prosecution. Unfortunately you cannot outlaw stupidity.

    • Bob Olds

      - – Did any of you HOT-Heads even think that the first guy MIGHT have pulled into the car wash to separate his family from the ‘ tailgater ‘ ??? , Then the follower followed him to escalate the argument ?? – – The first one got out to separate his family from the hot-Head following him ???–Then he was defending himself from the Hot-Head !!!!!

      • Mark

        Please, he may have pulled off the road to avoid the tailgater, but there’s no question that he exited the car to confront the guy. The moment he started arguing with the guy he exponentially increased the risk to both himself and his family.

        • gerald

          The car wash was 1/2 mile from the city police dept or 1 mile from a state police post. Either or both had the option to continue on to a safe area given the tailgating behavior preceding the confrontation.
          Don’t assume it was a random act of road rage as the 2 had known each other before. It was stupid, both were trained and yet failed their training.
          The unfortunate part is this provision of fodder for those who buy into the idea everyone with a firearm is an idiot.
          Can you please post the data regarding decreases in crime in areas of legal carry alongside the claims that no one should carry?
          Sometimes the percentages speak for themselves, but the “don’t confuse me with the facts when I am responding to my feelings” finds this hard to accept.

  • http://AmericansAgasintTheTeaParty Sandra

    Ooops…”flare”…my bad

  • http://AmericansAgasintTheTeaParty Sandra

    This all started because of “road rage”. Tempers flair just because someone “cut you off” or made a dumb mistake while driving. My theory is that most road rage is the product of caffeine use. Let’s ban caffeine and see how things go. :-)

    • Nick

      A lot of road rage stems from the heightened sense of “space” you have while driving in your car. The car becomes an extension of your body and people do all sorts of crazy things because of this inflated sense of “self.” Note that If you’ve ever been cut off and felt personally slighted by the actions of the person who cut you off, you know what it’s like to feel like the car is an extension of you.

    • JeffSharick

      Dumbest thing I’ve ever read. Road rage has to do with… hm, RAGE? Anger? People are angry, especially old white men. Caffeine has nothing to do with this. People think they’re special and they’re more important than everyone else.

      • https://www.facebook.com/Whitesharkdiver Martin Graf

        I think the caffeine remark was sarcastic.

    • Mike

      You’ll get my cafeine when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

  • craig S

    Interesting discussion……just please, keep the Second Amendment, the “freedoms” and the BS SOUTH of the border. I moved to Toronto in December from VA for work…..4th largest city in the Americas-inc. Mexico and as of a few weeks ago, 6 homicides in 2014!

    • ts

      TO is an amazing city, have been there several times, incredibly diverse, clean and expensive! And you have highways in that city that are parking lots for hours…if you had people driving around with guns you’d have six road rage killings a day…

    • http://jacksmedium John R (Jack) Williams

      Good for you. Move over, you are likely to have company.

  • Amy

    Conservatives and liberals own guns. It wasn’t just republicans who voted down gun control. Making insensitive, thoughtless comments toward each other only deepens the division in this country. We need to work together, if we can’t get political labels what chance do we have to create a solution to the violence problem? We need to stop tearing each other down, and find ways to lift each other up.

    • Dave

      Well said, Amy – the U.S. has become far too polarised in recent years. People seem to have forgotten that the only way for us to move forward is through compromise; each side HAS to come out of their trench and find some common ground on which to stand or we will fall together, regardless of individual ideologies.

      • JeffSharick

        Republicans don’t compromise, that’s the problem. Haven’t you been paying attention the last several years?

    • Mike

      Right. The RePukes see compromise as weakness. If the Dems compromise, the Pukes always want more. You can’t negotiate with legislative terrorists.

      • http://eatshit.com victordaily

        and it’s not that liberal voters are friends the democrats, its just that the democrats are the only ones willing to negotiate..

    • Newt Inski

      Not that simple: there are 2 “conservative” gun owners for every one liberal one. Worrying about your gun ownership “rights” remains a mostly, if not exclusively, “conservative thing.”

      Also a high school dropout thing. The stats indicate the more education you have, the less likely you are to own a gun.

      http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

  • owilde1

    I guess mental illness kicked in after they pulled into the car wash, for the tragic result could hardly be blamed on the need to carry a gun while taking your mother-in-law to the Piggly-Wiggly.

  • Sleeper252

    Everyone who has a permit to carry and actually does carry is NOT a “GUN NUT”. Though these guys may have deserved this moniker I would prefer if folks would stop calling them that.

    • Ben

      I’d prefer my right to live takes precedent over your right to carry a gun. This story is a prime example why you can not be trusted.

    • http://gravatar.com/theliberalbuzz theliberalbuzz

      Sorry but if you feel the need to carry a concealed gun, then that label applies.

    • ts

      If you are so afraid that you carry a weapon every time you leave your house, you’re a gun nut. You carry a weapon to feel secure, but you never feel secure because you always need the weapon, you’re a gun nut. You carry an gun that makes it more, not less, likely that you will be shot, that is nuts. You purchased a weapon to protect yourself, yet it is more likely to injure you or a family member than any assailant…that is the definition of “nuts”.

      • https://www.facebook.com/imabalog Julie Lazart Balog

        I couldn’t have said it better…..

      • Lynne Gardner

        Very well put!

  • Mommynole68

    If the 2 guys had been having words on the road, even if Taylor were the instigator, Pullum pulled into the carwash to settle the score, it appears from the somewhat disjointed article. He may have thought they would square off, mano a mano, but he can’t necessarily be called the innocent one because he deliberately positioned himself to confront the man he’d been in conflict with, on the roadway. That’s not wise. Is Michigan a Stand Your Ground state? I would imagine, if so, that no duty to retreat does not apply to people driving on the road, in 2 separate vehicles. I’d think you just continue on your way, perhaps at an accelerated pace or call 911, if seriously fearful. Pulling over to have it out is just a recipe to now incite physical violence. Recap, Pullum should never have stopped his car, under the presenting circumstances. That’s the problem with carrying guns everywhere. People assume the role of law enforcement, who, in truth, very rarely have to draw their weapons on civilians. Some of the armed, untrained civilians are operating with a false sense of security.

  • Bill Edelman

    One teabagger shot to death in a 2nd-amendment shootout is justice; two is reason for celebration…

    • https://www.facebook.com/julian.trovada Julian Trovada

      As usual, the irrational person self-destructs.

    • Ryan

      It is one thing to disagree with a person based on their views, and it is another to judge them based on their views. But it is a bit morally questionable to praise the death of someone with whom you disagree politically.

  • Charlie C

    Raji ,, spoken like a true follower of communists. You are exactly the person that should never possess much less own a firearm. You are the ones that speak of death to all that don’t agree with your drivel

    • Adam

      Communists ? really ?
      Would that be anyone who disagrees with your new-nazi, ultra-fascist deluded outlook on life ?
      Small detail : “possess” is a synonym for, and therefore exactly the same as “own” so perhaps getting a basic education may be indicated. It may even cure or ameliorate (look it up) your right-winged affliction.

      • zten

        Adam you are saying that you prefer not to be called a communist but accept being called a new-Nazi, ultra-fascist person with a deluded outlook on life. Okay, you are. As we all know, the Nazi believed in total gun control which I take you new-Nazi believe in also. Shame, shame on you.

        • http://danbruseth.wordpress.com nothingmusic42

          not to good with the reading comprehension, are you? nor with history?

          • https://www.facebook.com/gray.hunter.1 Gray Hunter

            That’s “too good”….. but otherwise, you are correct.

        • Igotyourgodrigodrighthere

          The Nazi’s believed in control as a means to an end. They wanted power and they did whatever it took to keep it. There was no deep seated need to control guns on their part. Also no one here is a communist or a Nazi this are just names throw at one another to confuse the issue.

        • Barney Muldoon

          No, we all don’t know the Nazis were for total gun control because they weren’t. Do you ever use actual facts or just “Right Wing Facts”?

        • Matt

          The Nazis were also anti gay, anti abortion, anti immigrant, and anti non-Christian.

          The Right has a LOT more in common with the Nazis than the Left.

  • http://www.dzyak.com Brian

    BWAH HA HA!!!!

  • http://twitter.com/MuffinManMPV Muffin Man (@MuffinManMPV)

    There’s something else that is not being discussed very much. For a long, long time many cultures have worshipped that which they regarded as having the power of life and death over them. Not just to explain why things happened….but to fill a psychological need, however crazy it sounds now. It some ways we do kind of “worship” guns. Most of us depend on our cars and trucks much more on a daily basis than we do on carrying around a gun. But we seem more comfortable having to get car insurance, vision tests, sobriety checks, seatbelt checks, etc. and having them taken away from us, than having one gun taken away.

    • akismet-3e142415bedef2658717ae40a9fdf5b0

      Muffin Man, I think you are absolutely right, the gun gives one “god-like” power over life and death of other people. And as we all know, power not only corrupts, it is addictive. Gun nuts refuse to give up their guns because owning a gun gives them a sense of control over their own pathetic lives, lives over which they otherwise feel they have zero control.

      • https://plus.google.com/104035702941959463984 Pattie O’Donnell

        Hence the idiots parading around the toy aisles of Target with their rifles

      • Ruth C. Wagner

        I can’t agree with you muffin man, I grew up in a rural area and was introduced to guns and gun safety as a very young person. Respect was taught as well as the responsibility and danger of using a gun. Our family hunted using our guns for target practice and sport. The second amendment is vital to the individuals of this country’s freedom. I have a carry permit but use it with discretion when traveling back and forth to the range to practice. I have taken safety courses and passed the education on to my children. Having the choice to carry a weapon is a right. That right can and should be lost if you use your gun to break the law. For those of us that exercise that right responsibly it is frustrating to be called gun nuts by those of you that choose not to participate in gun ownership. Gun’s don’t give you power over anyone, they give you an incredible amount of responsibility that needs to be carefully exercised. The two men in question, at least one of them abused this responsibility and acted in rage and the other appears to have responded in defense, they both paid the ultimate price for their choices. Freedom gives you that choice. You can take guns from every law abiding citizen but it will not remove them from criminals and criminals will continue to be a threat to individuals. I pray I never have to use my gun defensively, but if my family or I was put in a position of being threatened with injury or death by an intruder I would exercise my right to protect my family as apposed to watching in helpless horror as my loved ones are violated, or killed. The wonderful thing about this country is if you don’t want to have guns in your home then you don’t have to buy them. So please feel free to exercise that right and be thankful for it, but for those of us that choose to exercise our right to own and operate this particular tool don’t continue to lump sum us. It is inaccurate and unfair.

        • Nick

          While I agree with most of what you’ve said, but I am so sick of this gun-apologist argument that it’s the “irresponsible” ones that make everyone else look bad. No. Take away all of the guns everywhere, like in England, and you will see a reduction in gun-related crime. It’s really that stupidly simple. And btw, Detroit and DC are terrible counterexamples of this because all someone needs to do is go outside of the city, get a gun and come back (since, you know, 2nd Amendment)

          On the other hand, it’d be a hell of a lot harder for a future criminal to travel to another COUNTRY to get a gun and then bring it back in. And even THEN you wouldn’t see as much gun violence as we currently have now. This idea that gun prohibition wouldn’t work because “nothing is going to stop a criminal from doing criminal things” is very flawed logic; deeply rooted in fear and the current state of gun oversaturation in this country. It’s people like you – the “responsible” gun owners – that sit on the sidelines, clutching your pearls, while the world goes to shit because of your obstinate attitude about gun legislation.

          This obsession we have for guns is absurd and unhealthy, and no one is willing to give an inch because everyone is paralyzed by the fucked up status quo in this country.

          PS: I don’t own a gun, but I also am not distrustful and paranoid of my neighbors, like so many gun owners seem to be.

          • https://www.facebook.com/imabalog Julie Lazart Balog

            Nicely said.

          • Joshua

            I am waiting for someone to say, We need our guns to protect us from the Govt’. To that I ask, do you own an Abrams Tank or a drone? if not, you are going to get your ass kicked. Have fun with that.

          • gerald

            You seem to have left out the amazing statistics of Chicago in the last few years. Zero tolerance for carry permits, increasing gun violence.
            I have not had a gun with me when traveling through this city, however I am planning another route to travel around this area the next time I take my family from Michigan to Wisconsin. Funny—I have not felt the need to plan in this manner prior to the ban.

        • https://www.facebook.com/tim.anderson.58910 Tim Anderson

          Ruth, if all gun owners were as responsible as you we probably wouldn’t be having a National discussion. There is a small percentage of irresponsible, mentally ill people who should have their “rights” taken away. The Santa Barbara, Virginia Tech, and Newtown shooters were all known to have mental problems. All 3 were seeing a psychologist. The only reason this is being fought is because the NRA wants everyone to own a gun…that’s their purpose, lobbying for gun manufacturers. People like you defend them because you fear a slippery slope of confiscation. THAT’S TOTAL NONSENSE. It’s like saying if we give marriage rights to gays, next people will want to marry animals. NO, that won’t happen. As we saw in Las Vegas, even two trained police officers can’t defend themselves when an intruder pulls a gun first. But maybe you’re better than the police..good luck with that.

  • http://rrjgeniblog.wordpress.com rrjgeni

    How sadly and stupidly ironic. Live by the gun die by the gun. The more guns the more stupid deaths. Twenty years ago they would have fought it out with their fists. Now everyone has a gun. How senseless.

    • Igotyourgodrigodrighthere

      Agreed. One of these men had a reason to be upset. As a society I would hope they could have solved it with words and if that failed a brief physical confrontation. If we are to continue to evolve and a species we need to move past the point where we fight and die with every stranger we meet. I am also willing to bet both of these men professed a religious faith that preaches turn the other cheek and the golden rule. Neither of which anyone in this story follows or truly believes.

    • smokijo

      Men these days don’t know how to fight with their fists the way real men used to do. If they can’t control something by using a keyboard andd an APP, then they resort to their second amendment rights as an excuse to eliminate anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Such a chicken way out. Second amendment was written LONG ago, and it did not give anyone the right to own an arsenal of assault rifles and semi-automatics. But go ahead and wipe yourselves out. God promised he’d never send the rain to wipe us out again…he doesn’t have to because we’re doing such a great job of wiping ourselves out. When are you folks going to wake up and discover that the NRA is run by gun manufacturers? I have no sympathy whatsoever for either of these two men. Act like an idiot and die like one.

  • colleen

    Perhaps if conservative men learned self control they wouldn’t be so eager to kill other people.

    • https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002847294703 Michael Miller

      They won’t. On the upside they are thinning their own herd.

      • http://daksden.wordpress.com dakotahgeo

        This… IS A GOOD THING!!

  • Pedro

    So you have two dead people instead of one but the good guy trying to protect his family would have died, gun or not, and possibly his family or other people around. So now you have a good guy protecting his family that died and he took out a road raging bad guy that sounds like he would kill again if he hadn’t been taken out. Sure both people can be killed but when you have a guy that wants to kill you, at least you go down fighting. Either way it’s a win win situation for anti-gun media. Both people die, and you get articles like this. One person dies and road rageing gun nut kills father.

    • https://plus.google.com/110447892821091426944 Ken D’Ambrosio

      Or…
      a) Neither of them has guns, and they’re both still alive, OR…
      b) only one of them has a gun, so it doesn’t escalate like crazy.

      Once you have “exited your vehicle,” you know escalation is a very real possibility. Would they have been so willing to take that step had they been unarmed? I think not. They felt empowered with their firearm, and willingness to use it “should the need arise.” I rather doubt either of them got out of the car with the express desire to kill the other — but when they both happened to be armed, that’s when things went bad, and fast.

      You can put any spin you want on it, but guns allow people to kill each other way more easily, and with way less thought, than pretty much any other method. There are very few people whose deaths I would consider a “good thing” as some have posited in these responses, and these two certainly don’t qualify merely because they made a bad choice. The problem here, though, is that the guns made that choice a one-way choice, with no chance to think things over, or say you’re sorry afterward.

      • https://www.facebook.com/joanna.patton1 Joanna Patton

        You are absolutely right. The very presence of guns makes it more likely that when tempers are lost it won’t be a case of fisticuffs and a broken nose.

        I also wonder whether long exposure to violent movies and video games mean that there is a subconscious expectation that there will be no long-term consequences to shooting a person.

        And maybe there is also a desensitisation (yes, I’m British) to violence itself when a fantasy turns real life into a ‘movie’.

        How many of us, particularly at adolescence, have reworked reality in our imagination to become the heroes and heroines of our stories? This is something common to all humanity, and sometimes it makes life bearable. But what about when it ends in a school massacre? And what does it say about a society which is willing to tolerate an average of a massacre a week in order to have easy access to firearms?

        I have to tell you, I hope none of my children or grandchildren ever want to live in your country. It is so dangerous.

        • Diane Fry

          I do not agree with you,that long time exposure to certain genre’s of movies,or video games could have contributed to these two nut jobs killing each other… That’s like saying that listening to a record played backwards leads you to satin…. these men acted reckless,and,once the guns were drawn,their testosterone levels got bigger then their common sense!

    • mary

      There is a good possibility that the initial shooter also thought he was a good guy with a gun. It just happened to be handy when he got angry. Since the article doesn’t say, I will asumme both men were white. If the folks in the Pullum car were people of color, I wonder which of the shooters would be considered the bad one.

      It’s very fortunate no innocent bystanders were killed as well.

    • ts

      It is a fact that gun owners are far more likely to be shot than non gun owners. This indicates a predisposition of an armed person to engage in violent conflict, and that a carrying a weapon has the exact opposite result than anticipated…that instead of making you safer, it increases the likelihood of being injured. If neither man had been armed, it is likely this road range incident never escalates beyond horns and fingers. Both men were emboldened by their belief that they held the high card in this game.

  • Dano

    I’m confused. Do you want these people killing each other or not?
    And you never made a connection to the Second Amendment. Where was the militia?

    • https://plus.google.com/+ScottLockwoodIII Scott Lockwood III

      Militias have nothing to do with it. The supreme court has ruled that the two clauses are not connected. But then, I suspect you knew that and are just trolling, right?

      • http://gravatar.com/carowe caroweCharlotte

        Riggghhht – the same supreme court that said there should be unfettered money in politics and that corporations are people. The two clauses are not connected becasue they appear in the same sentence and the first one is quite clearly (to anyone who is literate) conditioning the second. It is the deluded idealogues who try to pretend that there is no connection who are the ruin of our country. And the dimwits who blindly follow them because you know, fear and hate and Benghazi.

      • http://www.dzyak.com Brian

        “Militias have nothing to do with it. The supreme court has ruled that the two clauses are not connected. But then, I suspect you knew that and are just trolling, right?” – Scott Lockwood III

        The Founders didn’t want this nation to have a standing military so they wrote Article One, Section 8, Line 12 to prevent it. A Federal Government without a standing military is no threat at all, except legislatively, and we have the power of the vote for that.

        In the absence of a standing military, they wrote The Second Amendment to provide the mechanism by which We the People could DEFEND our government from foreign enemies whenever Congress declares an Act of War.

        The “DC vs Heller” SCOTUS decision was fundamentally unconstitutional as the activist Conservative Court removed the context of National Defense and replaced it solely with self-defense despite the historical record regarding how and why the Founders felt the way they did regarding standing militaries and gun ownership.

        The Stevens’ dissent in the Heller case sums up the situation perfectly:

        In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Stevens, after conducting his own extensive analysis of the Second Amendment’s text, history, and purpose, disparaged Scalia’s historical analysis, stating that the Court had based its holding on “a strained and unpersuasive reading” of the amendment. In Stevens’ opinion, the amendment protects the individual right to bear arms only for certain military purposes and does not limit the authority of legislatures to regulate private, civilian use of firearms (Id., at 2822).

        Stevens contends that not a word in the constitutional text supports the Court’s “overwrought and novel description” of the Second Amendment as elevating above all other interests “the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” (Id., at 2831). Rather, when each word in the text is given full effect, “the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia”(Id., at 2831). And there is no indication that the “Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution” (Id., at 2822). Instead, the historical record confirms that “the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms’ was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias” (Id., at 2826).

        Stevens argues that, in adopting the individual-right view, the Court had granted a “new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes” (Id., at 2846) and had overturned long-standing precedent in Miller. In contrast to Scalia, Stevens interprets Miller to mean that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but it does not limit government’s power to regulate nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons (Heller, at 2823).

        Stevens contends that many courts have relied on Miller, which is both the most natural reading of the amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption. He contends that “even if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court and for the rule of law itself would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law” (Heller, at 2824). The dissent concludes:

        The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons and to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice (Id., at 2847).

      • https://www.facebook.com/gray.hunter.1 Gray Hunter

        “Militias have nothing to do with it. ” That’s why it comes 1st!

        The 2nd amendment CLEARLY states you can own a flintlock so you can join a militia…. most likely in case the British come back to reclaim their colonies….which they did in 1812.

        Now go make out with your gun.

  • Stephen Collins

    well, that’s one answer to gun control, let them take care of each other, a little slower than we might like, but effective nevertheless

  • https://www.facebook.com/robert.nordgren.5 Robert Nordgren

    2 less gun nuts, win win for everyone else. yep guns made it safer for them. really get some real gun laws in place so idiots like this can be protected from themself

    • https://www.facebook.com/jamie.haman Jamie Haman

      “So idiots like this can be protected from themself”…I am inclined to think that if these types of shooters would only shoot each other the rest of us might be better off.
      Just saying.

  • https://www.facebook.com/tom.satanopoulos.9 Tom Satanopoulos

    This is one of the funniest things I have read in a while. MORON LUBE! Bwahahaha!!!!

  • marlene

    Retired U.S. Justice John Stevens recently recommended a change to the U.S. Constitution with the following change to the 2nd Amendment: “…the right of the people to bear arms when serving the MELITEA shall not be infringed.
    http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/retired-justice-john-paul-stevens-calls-for-six-new-constitutional-amendments/legal-issues/2014/03/06/84082

    • karen503

      I thought at first your comment was a sarcastic comment on Judge Stevens’ spelling. But I looked at your linked article, and voila! the spelling of “militia” is correct there.

      So, perhaps you’d like to enlighten me as to what “MELITEA” is supposed to represent?

      • http://www.nigel.je Nigel

        It’s a coffee machine in Europe ..

        • http://daksden.wordpress.com dakotahgeo

          Noooo… that’s Melita! :-)

    • https://www.facebook.com/villar777 F. Side

      Yet another reason why Justice Stevens gets close to zero respect in the legal community

      • https://www.facebook.com/gray.hunter.1 Gray Hunter

        because he’s not bought and paid for by the NRA?

  • https://www.facebook.com/bubba90350 Brandon Allen

    What a better reason to die than protecting that which you love. This is why you carry a gun so when some dumb ass pulls one on you or your family you have a fighting chance. Who knows if the man didn’t have a gun the guy might have killed not only him but his family as well. I agree if neither had a gun no one would have gotten shot but that doesn’t mean nobody would have died. Unfortunately guns were invented so everyone should carry them. “God made man, Guns made all men equal.” Ok that last part was totally uncalled for but I’m sure it will piss of some liberal douche YaY.

    • Julie

      hey I’m happy with the last part..and equally happy when two gun nuts shoot eachother to death rather than accidently killing an innocent bystander while these two gunslingers think this is the wild wild west. No different for me than when two criminals take each other out.I guess no one told the gun nuts that they are won’t be the only road raging gun carrying person on the road. Too bad..but if there is anything I’ve learned common sense has nothing to do with gun ownership.

    • https://www.facebook.com/reddick.harris Reddick Harris

      You’re an idiot.

    • Gayle

      What does “piss of” some liberal douche mean? I am not a liberal douche, but a liberal. If, in my opinion, one gun nut and another gun nut wish to man up and kill each other, I say that’s great. It’s when they decide to kill innocent people who don’t get hard-ons by carrying weapons that we have a problem in our society. We are doomed because so many people think that guns equal power and they feel powerless due to their stupidity in all other aspects of their lives (save the gun part).

    • Bob

      Guns made both men equally dead.

    • vicki

      Perhaps if they weren’t carrying weapons both of them or at least one of them might not have been so tough. They might actually both still be alive.

  • http://www.nagr.com Ricky Bobbi

    If you read the actual news article on this event it went very different. Taylor was the aggressor and simply started shooting. Pullum was already mortally wounded when he retreated back to his car where his firearm was secured and shot back once killing Taylor saving his mother-in-law and wife in the process. Taylor had his license revoked in 2006 so it looks to be just a criminal trying to kill an innocent man and his family.
    Using tragedy to promote an agenda is pathetic and shows weakness.

    • James

      Thank you Ricky. First comment that is both right in pointing out the obvious act of self-defense — or at least defense of family — and getting the facts straight. Everything else is just noise. It’s remarkable that people are so twisted by politics that they would speak so harshly of a victim. I guess what else would you expect on an anti-gun blog. It just so happened that I found this story first on an advocacy site rather than a useful news source. It’s a shame that for many people sites like this are echo chambers that just reinforce their simplistic views of the world.

    • Cathy

      Talk about B.S., shame on both of you. Taylor lost his license until 2009, reapplied for his concealed carry license and received it. This proves that us anti-gun people are RIGHT when we say we need sane gun control in this country. There is no article that states who started – but my guess is you got that from some op-ed at fox wonderland. They both had guns, Pullman pulled into a car wash to confront Taylor with his family in the car; that is not a good family man. He put them at risk by doing this. If he really wanted to protect his family, get mom or someone in the car to call 911, or drive to a police station, fire station, public area, etc. There were numerous other options. But you prefer to lie, call him a victim and say the anti gun people are pathetic. It is you who are pathetic if you think guns are the answer to America’s problems.

  • melmarr

    Dumb hillbillies.

  • Z54

    Two down, a whole bunch more to go!

    • http://twitter.com/thegrittyedge Gritty (@thegrittyedge)

      And YOU are a stupid fvkin moron!

      • Erin

        “fvkin”?? Guess the truth really hurts some people.

      • https://www.facebook.com/oddjrgensen Odd Jørgensen

        is that a line you practice in front of the mirror each morning?

    • Erin

      True poetic justice if all the gun nuts succeed in killing each other. I call them “Guns-for-brains”, since they’d obviously rather let their stupid f–king weapons do their thinking for them.

      • http://gravatar.com/monkeybc monkeybc

        Heres some truth for you…

        When it all comes crashing down and takes the internet with it all your smarmy wit and mouthy comebacks will wilt as well. The world will once again and as it always has be run by men who are willing to do violence.

        I too consider myself Liberal (pro choice, pr Obamacare, pro gay marriage) but I own guns and I carry a weapon. I have even had occasion to draw my weapon but never to fire it at anyone thankfully. I do not consider myself a nut (of course who does right) or lacking in male confidence.

        My guns are not an extension of me and make no mistake I do not own them for hunting, they are for people. I hope to never ever have to use them but I would and am prepared to. History has proven it wise to in my assessment.

        You see in the end civility and decorum are only present when you can afford them. When the economy of a country crashes, especially a spoiled country, then bad things happen. When that day comes you will die pitifully without even putting up a fight. Sorry but in my estimation that doesnt make you very smart at all.

        It takes many aspects to make a person, intelligence is but one. I also think if you understand guns more you might not be so irrational and willing to hurl insults about those that choose to own them.

        • Kim R.

          MONKEYBC – if only more gun owners were like you, though! A gun escalates violence in most situations. I am glad that you never have had to use it. Gun ownership makes one more likely to die in a gun-related homicide, not the other way around. But your thoughtful approach to ownership should be shared by all.

          • Nick

            “When the economy of a country crashes, especially a spoiled country, then bad things happen.”

            So lets all go get guns because the end is nigh! THE END IS NIGHHHHHHHH!!!!

            WAIT…That is what you’re implying, correct? That the country is on track for certain economic ruin? So my question is, why are you still here if the impending collapse is inevitable? Just so you can play lord of your domain when the “time” comes? Please tell me that is not your logic or reasoning; it is deeply flawed.

            And “die pitifully when the day comes?” because I don’t have a gun to defend myself. Ha. I don’t need a gun to defend myself from impending death. We all will die; get over it. Your gun(s) will not stop your undoing. In fact, it is more likely to hasten it.

        • gerald

          Well said– we may not agree on much. But your observation of human nature and using your brain to hope for the best but prepare for the worst has my respect.

  • http://gravatar.com/rafaith rafaith

    INSANITY!!!! I’m 59 years old, married to a man who has Bi polar Disorder. For years he’s harped about getting a gun, oh NO, not in my house, and not around my child. His melt downs at times were quite alarming due to the fact that he would go on and off his Meds. My Dad was WWII Vet. I learned how to use a gun at age 12. We had a gun closet, I’m 1 of 17 children, we all learned how to use guns. The closet was USUALLY locked, and when it wasn’t we didn’t go near it. I have nothing against sane, rational, and SENSIBLE folks owning guns, my problem is some people think a gun is the only way to solve a dispute. I remember one day my Dads gun closet was left open, and I peeked into my parents room and saw my brother messing with a gun, then he saw me!! He put it down and went down stairs to the kitchen phone and called the Police…………..I was listening in on another phone, he was BEGGING them to come and get him…………..looking back it was pretty funny, because we all KNEW NOT TO TOUCH THOSE GUNS WITHOUT DADS PERMISSION!!! Those Cops had a belly laugh!!! One of them was a bit sympathetic, he told my brother to get to Daddy before I did, and just fess up, that way, it’ll show your Dad you understand you were wrong, and that you;’re taking responsibility…….We live in a time of UTTER MADNESS, and it doesn’t appear anyone seems to realize JUST HOW BAD WE’VE BECOME!!!! I still don’t own a gun, but I have nothing against anyone owning one, my problem is if you are inclined to pull it out every time you “feel” threatened, or to “prove” something is not the way I learned how and what a gun was for. This is sad!!! 2 men are DEAD!!! And for what!!? It’s just SAD!!!!

    • Bonnie Crawford

      Just one more proof of why the U.S. needs to have strict (and enforced) gun control laws like civilized countries have. Until we do, we will continue seeing incidents like this one. But what is even sadder is that we will see innocent children killed, as happened in Newtown, CT.

      • Mike

        You are nuts.

      • MissTee

        And if Newtown didn’t move people to demand action, nothing ever will.

        • Goodwolf

          Given that only somewhere around 4 percent of violence in the United States can be attributed to people with mental illness, do you really feel it’s fair to profile a group in this way?

          I can post a link from the American Journal of Psychiatry to support that, if you like.

  • http://twitter.com/Endif_ ENDIF (@Endif_)

    This has nothing to do with the second amendment and everything to do with the causes of violence in our dysfunctional society. Until we address those causes, this and the rest of what you rightly lament here will continue, and worsen.

    • MissTee

      It has a lot to do with that, and a lot to do with the second amendment. To say it has “nothing” to do with the second is just silly. If the second had never been written, and we had sane gun laws, the psychos would just be beating each other up.

      • http://gravatar.com/carowe caroweCharlotte

        If the 2nd amendment were not being deliberately twisted and peddled to the fearful as something other than what it is, then we wouldn’t be in this situation. But there’s money to be made in inflaming hate and fear and in inciting the mob mentality that – like religions – has people desperately clinging to whatever fabrication the preacher makes because it makes them feel empowered. In this case the preacher is the NRA and their gerrymandered dimwit politicians backed by the monied interests such as Kochs (who don’t really care much about guns and 2nd amendment but care a lot about unifying a voting block in whatever way they can for other pocket-lining purposes) so they manipulate these people into chanting FREEDUM and GUMMINT and GUNZ! in a kind of group think that rivals the torch-bearing villagers pursuing Dr. Frankenstein’s unfortunate creation. In that sort of frenzy they aren’t going to care about murdered children, and if they do, their preachers will be quick to make up a story about how it’s someone else’s fault, it has nothing to do with GUNZ and by the way all those brown and black people are gonna git ya. This probably was initiated back when they started unraveling the education system because nobody succombs to this kind of brainwashing quite as nicely as an ignorant, illiterate person.

  • http://twitter.com/ErickErickscum Erick E. (@ErickErickscum)

    2 trigger-happy barrel boffers who are never going to hurt anyone innocent. You’ll forgive me for not feeling much in the way of pity for either one of them.

    • Jeff

      Well, only one of them was innocent at this point. Taylor would seem to be the ‘bad guy’ at this point. Would it have made more sense for Taylor to have pulled his gun and killed Pullman who was unarmed? I agree that some people have such lack of control that they are a danger. Unfortunately, no law allows us to discriminate the hot headed from the cool minded, nor has science offered us a method to test for it. Your solution is to take all firearms form the equation, which leaves only the truly criminals to have them. We can agree to disagree on that solution.

      • http://N/A Hattie Falin

        NO! That’s NOT our solution. No one said to take all guns from everyone. That’s your red herring to avoid talking about he obvious problem: a proliferation of weaponry to defy logic.

        Two middle-aged men are dead because both were too stupid to give up. Who won? Can you answer that? Did society win? Are we supposed to raise our glasses in a toast to “thinning the herd?”

        My husband has a concealed carry permit (because his job requires him to have a lot of someone else’s money – and thousands of dollars of tools – with him. He only carried the gun if he works at night. Because usually, he’s complete alone on deserted highways going to and from his work.

        One night, he hit a deer, and the deer was firmly lodged in his van’s bumper. He had no one to help him, and no one to call for help. He didn’t even think to get his weapon from the van while he tried to dislodge the deer, nor while he waited for the police to arrive to verify the situation for a police report – for insurance purposes.

        Love your guns if you want. But stop making stupid excuses about your sick obsessions. Just call it a fetish and get psychiatric help. OK?

        • Goodwolf

          I’m, uh… I’m not really seeing the relevance here. How does your husband prying a deer from his bumper have anything to do with gun violence?

          • MissTee

            I think she’s saying it never occurred to him to grab his gun and cling to it for “safety” while he waited. Because he isn’t an insecure and frightened little boy.

          • Goodwolf

            You don’t have to be an “insecure and frightnened little boy” to carry, although I’m sure there are a few that are. Having experience in hunting, in this particular case with the deer, I might have gotten the handgun at first. Mainly because if the deer were still alive, they have been known to kill people in their death throes. Putting it out of its misery would be a piece of mercy. That done though, many people would probably put the gun up.

            You can’t just paint all people who carry or who have a desire to carry as insecure or frightened. Many off duty cops and military personnel often carry. Many police unions make sure that any laws passed will exempt active and retired police officers from any limiting factors, like NY’s recent 7 round cap. And so you wind up with what we had here in FL, where a retired cop shot a guy in the movie theater for texting during the previews. To be logically consistent, if you feel that all gun owners/pro 2A supporters are frightened and afraid, you’ll have to paint the police and military with that same broad brush.

            I’m not sure about the rest of you, but I’m not all that keen on the idea of being a second class citizen when it comes to the second amendment. I do not currently own a firearm, and I’m not even seriously searching for one at the moment. But I do feel very strongly about the ideals of freedom. Any laws concerning firearms should apply not just to us, but to the police and military if we are to be truly equal. That even includes the security assigned to our politicians.

      • MissTee

        1. Erik did not say that was his solution. You just made that up. 2. Science does have a method of testing for these things. Several methods, actually.

      • https://www.facebook.com/ernest.crunkleton Ernest Crunkleton

        False dilemma much? or was that a slippery slope too?

  • https://www.facebook.com/viir.exeter Viir Exeter

    Only in ‘Merica. Um….

    The 2nd Amendment says, “A well regulated militia,” not an UNregulated mass of armed citizens. It says, “Being necessary to the security of a free state,” not being necessary to the perpetuation of the firearms industry. It says, “The right of the people to keep & bear arms,” not to buy and conceal the latest in man-slaughtering, human/animal SHREDDING technology. Those of whom are weak enough to subscribe to gun ownership are the ones of whom wish to rewrite the 2nd Amendment, not those who wish for sensible gun control, i.e., background checks and making it illegal for persons with criminal records and the mentally ill to (very EASILY, like Nancy Lanza’s son) acquire guns and automatic weapons—that SHRED their victims.

    • James Fenter

      Viir Exeter is right A well regulated militia they want rapaid fire guns they should do one weekend a mounth and 30 days a year learning how to use them

      • http://gravatar.com/latenightlarry latenightlarry

        And they should also be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice every time they fire that penis substitute… fire a weapon without good reason, spend a month or two in the stockade. Kill another person except in self-defense or the defense of others, expand that to a decade or two in the stockade…

    • Shel

      Exactly!

    • https://plus.google.com/+ScottLockwoodIII Scott Lockwood III

      The highest court in the land doesn’t agree with you, and it’s now settled that the 2nd amendment does protect the right to own a gun without being in a militia.

      • https://www.facebook.com/ernest.crunkleton Ernest Crunkleton

        if that were true there would not of been a dissenting opinion.

      • http://www.dzyak.com Brian

        “The highest court in the land doesn’t agree with you, and it’s now settled that the 2nd amendment does protect the right to own a gun without being in a militia.” – Scott Lockwood III

        Heller was a 5-4 decision, so it wasn’t a unanimous “court” that interpreted (misinterpreted) the intent of The Second Amendment.

        It is NOT “settled” in any way, clearly, as it is still being discussed and questioned.

        Again for the slow kids in class, the Founders didn’t want this nation to have a standing military so they wrote Article One, Section 8, Line 12 to prevent it. A Federal Government without a standing military is no threat at all, except legislatively, and we have the power of the vote for that.

        In the absence of a standing military, they wrote The Second Amendment to provide the mechanism by which We the People could DEFEND our government from foreign enemies whenever Congress declares an Act of War.

        What the HELLER court did was to uncouple the responsibility of National Defense from the “right” to keep and bear Arms (not just guns) replacing that responsibility (and regulation) with the unregulated and unfettered right to own almost any guns a person wants for self defense.

        As Justice Stevens’ dissent concluded correctly, “The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons and to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice (Id., at 2847).”

  • http://jade4142.wordpress.com jade4142

    Yes, let’s get the lunatic fringe and all the militia forming and put them on opposite sides of a big field. Have someone yell, repeal the second amendment, and watch them just shoot each other mindlessly. Those two men would be alive today if they hadn’t been legally carrying their guns. Stupid waste of human life.

    • Jeff

      I do find it interesting to note that the majority of those who hate guns tend to express the most violent views.

      • http://jade4142.wordpress.com jade4142

        Oh, big mistake, Jeff. I don’t hate guns. I hate it when guns are used irresponsibly. I have a gun and it has a trigger guard on it, the key to which I challenge anyone to find. That’s responsible gun use. This was not. And arming with the excuse that you have the right to own assault weapons or 32 other types of guns because the second amendment permits it is irresponsible. I have a gun. It’s all I need for home defense. Maybe another household could use one for hunting. But that’s all. The rest of it is hysteria defending itself with an amendment that doesn’t even begin to permit what’s going on.

  • http://jackward.net-Thereisahomepage,thesiteisbeingrebuilt... Jack Ward, PhD

    I had seen this and it put a big smile on my face. Now, if we could get all those gun nuts in Congress to stand in circular firing squad and pull the trigger maybe we could get some sensible firearms controls.

  • superabound1

    They never would have Second-Amendmented each other to death if they hadnt First-Amendmented each other into a frenzy first.

    Thats why we should repeal the First Amendment. If people cant talk to each other, then they cant get mad enough to kill each other, and it will save peoples lives. Why are people who support the First Amendment so opposed to saving peoples lives? The lives of CHILDREN even!

    • Shekent’menment

      Wow. That is some new level of dumb, superaboned1, how can you even type?

      • Boz

        I think it was intended to be ironic, but…you never can tell for sure!

      • Goodwolf

        Says the guy who can’t see enough irony to build a battleship.

      • MissTee

        The same idiots that whine that we should ban cars and knives. They are not interested in solutions, and they believe horrors like Newtown are an acceptable price for them to have their little killing toys.

    • Vito

      We should have no rights, After all people die in the name of freedom. Everybody should do as they’re told and nobody will die! Protect lives we must in the name of.. Staying alive? Fuck freedom guys i just want to live. Infact you should be jailed if you speak your mind this way you don’t die and you don’t infect others.

      All of us posting here are doomed to be jailed :(

  • Mark Anderson

    Two idiots with guns less in the world to deal with, I say let them kill each other and continue doing so until all gun nuts are gone. Good riddance!!!

    • funny dog

      beginnings of a new reality show. if both parties were home in one house watching football and a disagreement was looming an interesting potential, both families, a couple extra guns around. suddenly the front and rear home doors are kicked in, you all can write the ending. i would like to be the fly on the wall. i love guns, it’s the people that ya gotta look out fer

    • vito

      One guy followed the other the same guy drew and fired first, the other was defending himself. Black and white they’re it’s a shame he died in self defence as well.

      • MissTee

        If the story turns out to be true, yes. The second man was defending himself and his family. The sad thing is, he was killed anyway.

  • Dem who values honesty over politics

    The coverage on this story sucks.

    Real story: Asshole with illegal gun (yes, look it up, it should have been forfeited due to DUI conviction) tailgates and road rages. Dude with wife and mother in car pulls into parking lot to avoid asshole. Asshole comes after him with illegal gun. Dude pulls legal gun to defend himself and his family. Asshole fires first, innocent dude dies in front of his family but manages to take asshole with him.

    I’m glad you are all having a good laugh at the murder of an innocent man.

    • David Worrell

      “Taylor had a misdemeanor conviction in 2006 for driving while intoxicated and separately for carrying a gun in the car, Ionia County Prosecutor Robert Schafer told ABC News. As a result, his concealed weapons license was revoked for three years. He eventually applied and received a new license four years later in 2010, Schafer said.”

      • MissTee

        Honestly, that law should change. If someone gets a DUI while carrying a weapon should lose the conceal carry license permanently.

    • David Worrell

      Additionally, I don’t know any Democrats who refer to themselves as “Dems.” Maybe you’re just a beautiful, unique snowflake, though.

      • MissTee

        Plenty of Dems call themselves Dem. maybe you should know more Dems.

      • https://www.facebook.com/gregory.mead.73 Gregory Mead

        Not relevant to “Dem who values honesty over politics”, but when I’m typing it out, I usually use “Dem” and “Repub” rather than the whole world, but I’m a lazy typist.

    • Bob Cull

      I can speak only for myself but I found nothing amusing in this incident. As someone who has owned guns since I was 12 years old and got my first hunting license, I am disgusted by those who think that they have the right to own any weapon that is made in any quantity. These same morons invariably think that the intent of the 2nd amendment was that the people should be prepared to violently overthrow the legally elected government when it had no such meaning.

      This was a tragedy brought about by the old west mentality that everyone should be allowed to walk around “strapped” at all times. The old west wasn’t even the old west, what people think about it is a Hollywood construct that never existed.

      • mittfh

        Never mind that the government has far more powerful weaponry at its disposal than any civilian could possibly hope to get their hands on, so the chances of a citizens’ revolt against a hypothetical tyrannical government (which in itself is an event with a very slim probability of occurring) having any degree of success are probably about as likely as winning the lottery jackpot two weeks in succession. The other favourite argument is that they’ll use their guns to defend themselves against anyone in officialdom wanting to confiscate their guns. Needless to say, in that unlikely event, if they shot and injured or killed the person from officialdom, they’d have committed a greater crime, so officialdom would have even more reason to confiscate their guns (and would probably return wearing full body armour).

        Personally, I’m not keen on mass ownership of guns and there seem to be too many idiots in charge; however, the number of guns in circulation in the US plus the relatively porous border with Mexico makes any attempts to severely restrict the flow or supply of weapons doomed. There are also many legitimate uses for guns – home defence (which various legal rulings state is the current purpose of the [awkwardly worded] 2nd Amendment), properly supervised shooting ranges / gun clubs, reminding wild animals that the hedge / fence at the edge of your property exists for a reason (other than an entertaining challenge for them to overcome) etc.

        However, background checks could potentially reduce the number of idiots with excessive / inappropriate guns (yes, they won’t stop die-hard criminals who obtain theirs on the black market, but could deter opportunists), while quasi-mandatory training (i.e. not mandatory, but not undergoing training could count against you if you have gun-related problems with the law) may help more people realise that guns in real life are quite different to guns as portrayed in fiction. Maybe even increase the number and visibility of anger management / dispute resolution classes, to encourage hotheads to seek alternative solutions to waving their gun around if they get angry with someone…

        • Jeff

          In 2010, over 6 million applications to purchase a firearm resulted in 13 convictions. Additional checks is expected to increase the number of applications by 40%, meaning 8 more convictions for the additional millions spent.

          I’d rather see that money spent on law enforcement at a local level so it can be used to reduce ALL crimes, not just those 8 who tried to buy a firearm illegally.

          • http://gravatar.com/dixiearrow1 dixiearrow1

            I think you would be amazed at how that number would skyrocket if the gun show loopholes were closed. Right now, illegal gun runners and criminals can walk in and purchase whatever and how many they want, no background checks. I guess that’s A-OK with you?

          • MissTee

            These numbers are misleading. That only counts convictions. There are quite a lot more that are either never prosecuted or found not guilty (because intent to defraud can be difficult to prove). However, the gun show loophole is really a major problem. Felons, wife beaters, terrorists, DUI offenders, and people deemed mentally incompetent know how to get around the background checks. Whenever the ad on the tv screams “GUNS! GUNS! GUNS!” They all come running.

    • https://plus.google.com/+ScottLockwoodIII Scott Lockwood III

      Yeah, that is what bothers me the most. Where is the compassion and tolerance the left is famous for? I have never been more committed to identifying myself as a centrist, than I am after reading all the horrible replies from jerks cheering the death of others.

  • https://www.facebook.com/anne.elhabre Anne El-Habre

    See, this is why etiquette is so important. If they were going to have a duel – they should have done it properly. Haste makes waste.

  • K.Y.

    Definitely two new nominees for the 2013 Darwin Awards…

    • http://acesmad.com John

      How original. Thanks for your contribution, Charles D. (yes, that’s you, K.Y.)

      • http://gravatar.com/latenightlarry latenightlarry

        Can’t be a Darwin Award… that means you have to believe in EVOLUTION… and gun nut teabaggers don’t believe in that word…

  • http://gravatar.com/blueskies285 blueskies285

    How bizarre. What would possess a sane individual to shoot another over a perceived slight in traffic? Sometimes it seems as if sanity has left the building.

  • Jefferson Facepalm

    So Which one was the “good guy” with the gun? Bet both their moms say they both were! Which one wins on “stand your ground” Why didn’t they use knives if knives are just as dangerous, why didn’t they settle it with their cars if cars are just as bad killers as guns. Oh wait I know because when your enraged and want to kill someone for sure and fast NOTHIN beats a gun.

    • https://plus.google.com/+ScottLockwoodIII Scott Lockwood III

      Do you bother to fact check? This was in Michigan, not Florida. Also, stand your ground wouldn’t have applied to this at all. You only make yourself look bad when you write things like this.

  • http://americansagainsttheteaparty susan

    guns let people act stupid. they think they are all big and bad. they don’t behave like an adult and act stupid then instead of apologizing they puff up and threaten. before you know it someone got shot in this case to stupid men got shot and killed. and now their families and friends have to deal with a pointless death yet again

  • Pingback: Karma Is Not An NRA Member… | Mountain Cabin

  • Jess Cote

    Haha, Stupid Americans. All NRA members should follow their lead.

    • http://acesmad.com John

      How pathetically envious of you. Why not post your hatred on a site originating in your own backward country? Wherever it is — not that anyone really cares.

      • https://www.facebook.com/anthonyokafor973 Anthony Okafor

        Envious of what? Two morons who shoot each other dead over nothing? Get over yourself. No one besides Pygmies in Borneo envy the US

        • ocean

          well said Antony….

        • Brenda

          After a lifetime of travel, and visits to more than 40 countries, I can say with certainty that the rest of the world deeply envies the USA.

          • http://gravatar.com/mdick99 Martin

            No, we don’t

          • Tom

            Err… sorry Brenda. That may have been PARTLY true 20 years ago, but now the world sees the US as a bunch of dumb isolated violent oafs.

          • https://www.facebook.com/Mapiq2005 Brian Richards

            I’m a Canadian. Can’t stand the US although I have many friends there.

        • https://www.facebook.com/keltillos Alan Joseph

          Brian…maybe you shop stop using US technology and US websites, eh? Yer educated enough to know what I’m talkin aboot here, eh? Go play some hockey and tickle some moose nuts, ya hoser, and stop using computers and internet, both of which were made in that country that you hate, ok?

          • Vito

            You do know the US buys most of its technological patents from other countries right? You do know that i’m Canadian and have never seen a moose right? You do know i don’t drive a dog sled right? You do know that buffalo gets more snow then where i live right? You do know that as a Canadian i can get a gun licence and buy an AK 47 right? You do know that telephone you use was made here in Canada EH? EH hows Obama care?

          • https://www.facebook.com/mel.h.sr Mel Haun Sr

            @Alan, you are aware are you not, that we are no longer number 1 at anything except number incarcerated, and Military spending any more since Reagan. That since his adimin paid companies to move out of the country, very little of our R&D or manufacturing is done here any more. That before ACA, we were below Cuba in Health care ( 37th if I remember correctly ) but paid twice as much on average,… We were once envied by much of the World, but since about Nixon, it has been mostly downhill.

  • http://gravatar.com/smallwoodenator Matt Smallwood

    Yes, this is absolutely how two people in a modern, civilized society should work out their disagreements. NOT. I’d give money for a good ol’ throwin’ of the hands in this scenario. Too much violence in this country… :-(

    • Stephen Smithwick

      I argue the same. Punch each other a few times, someone concedes, everyone goes home to dinner. While it certainly is possible to die in a fistfight, it’s certainly a lot harder to kill someone with your bare hands than it is with a gun.

    • http://acesmad.com John

      So, you think there is too much violence, yet you’re still advocating violence in the form of a fistfight? Smallwood? Perfect.

      • Vito

        With no referee available violence seems to be the one indisputable way to show who is on top. A fist fight is a fist fight and everybody has been in a fist fight. Everyone who has been in a gun fight is either a murderer or dead unfortunately. I suggest that fist fights prove who is on top, where as guns don’t prove anything and are merely a tool for your own life not a dispute. It being a tool to protect your life or that of your families i also suggest it is a once in a lifetime moment should you have need to protect your life using a gun in a country like the US.

        If you’re having male dominance problems the common answer should be get training so you can win a fist fight. Otherwise you make up for it by chasing people in your car with a gun over a traffic dispute. There is conflict then there is murder. Conflict is natural we all want to feel on-top of our own world i deem fist fighting a healthy way to express competition. If you don’t want to practice to be good at said competition then avoid conflict at all costs, a gun is not the answer. Its the coward in a cowards hand.

  • Emma Goldman

    Anger, men, guns. Three problems that won’t go away.

    • [email protected]

      What about dumb bitches?

    • https://www.facebook.com/anthonyokafor973 Anthony Okafor

      cool story sexist

    • http://gravatar.com/latenightlarry latenightlarry

      Anger, Guns, and dump men who think their penis substitute makes them invincible, until it doesn’t…

    • Jadzia

      What do you mean “won’t go away”? This seems to be fixing itself just fine!

  • Jude Iscariot

    James shot first!

    • https://www.facebook.com/kelly.carreno57 Kelly Carreño Jack

      So you were there? Or you must be related to one of the dumbasses?

      • Monkey

        Kelly – it is a Star Wars reference. Han shot first.

        • http://gravatar.com/lonnie93041 lonnie93041

          Them’s fightin’ words around here! Greedo shot first and you know it!

      • Objet Dart

        Wooosh!

  • https://www.facebook.com/stephanie.a.trump Stephanie Anne Equality Trump

    Darwin award!!!!!

    • http://gravatar.com/jdfindley J. Findley

      Unfortunately, they were both past or well into the reproductive age. The Darwin Effect only works to the benefit of society if their stupidity kills them BEFORE they reproduce.

      • http://gravatar.com/dixiearrow1 dixiearrow1

        Actually, men can contribute to reproduction until a ripe old age. It’s women who cannot after menopause. It’s why you see old men with really young children. Of course, they have wives who are in their childbearing years.

  • TJ

    I think we need to reinstitute those well-regulated militias the 2nd amendment talks about (the first part that is completely ignored by the NRA). That way, those who want to have guns could do their duty and serve their country when called upon do do so.

    • http://gravatar.com/chermoe chermoe

      You’ve totally got the right idea.

    • margaret

      yep, why do they always fail to mention that well-regulated militia phrase which is critical to a correct interpretation?

      • Tony Cossio

        They didn’t forget. SCOTUS went thru it, it is called a prefatory clause. The Army does not need a 2nd Amendment, your argument makes no sense.

  • http://sosparkly.photoshop.com sosparkly

    Before the proliferation of guns, someone would walk away from a thing like that with a bloody lip.
    You’ve got a couple of people driving with loaded guns, who were prepared to die over a perceived slight in traffic, and so they did.
    Somehow it all worked itself out…

    • Frank

      They “stood their ground”…

      • https://www.facebook.com/teddy.simon2 Teddy Simon

        and now they are in the ground

    • Brian

      Before the proliferation of guns? You mean the European Renaissance? People have been having gun fights longer than the US has been a thing.

  • maurinsky

    The presence of guns seems to escalate the response to frustration and anger, from yelling and punching to shooting. It’s a problem, but apparently it’s one we want in the United States. Because we can’t be free unless a disagreement can be settled with a shoot-out, right?

    • http://gravatar.com/chermoe chermoe

      Some men feel that the only way they’re “men” or have any power or control is to have a gun. And when you have a gun, you are more likely to feel “brave” and to threaten and/or use it. It’s quick & easy and VERY impersonal. You can shoot from very far away, depending on your firepower. And then walk away and not let it bother you. My personal feeling is that once you get comfortable killing animals and putting animals down like they do in rural areas (thinking Old West here, as well), it’s easier to cross that line and use it on a person. Just like in heavy crime areas, if it’s what you grow up with, it simply becomes part of your culture. It becomes your first and only reaction to any problem. This is where the loss of “civilization” occurs. And it has, in this country. I don’t think the “gun culture” makes you “respect” guns more (or life). It just makes you a better aim, IMHO.

      • Bill Wallace

        Actually nothing teaches respect for the power of a gun like a piece of Bambi or Thumper on the dinner table. Rural kids see these animals running in the wild and realize how final death from a gun is when they are eating the critter that was running around this morning. We have lost that connection with food from the grocery store and TV / video games.
        Road rage is another matter. Honestly, this is a manifestation of an autism spectrum disorder. Now he would be diagnosed as autistic with a rage disorder. Autism isn’t on the rise, but awareness is. Kids get diagnosed and helped, but we just consider autistic adults to be jerks..

        • Marl

          What does having an Autism spectrum disorder have to do with two idiots carrying guns and killing each other over something stupid as road rage? Because two men behaved immaturely and killed one another doesn’t have anything to do with Autism. Your comment that Autism isn’t on the rise does not match the current demographics and considering an adult who has autism to be a “jerk” is just an opinion from a seeemingly biased individual. My adult son has autism…he’s no jerk; he’s a loving human being. Shame on you for your ignorant remarks.

          • Bill Wallace

            Actually autism spectrum disorder covers a wide range from what we think of as classic autism to the reclassified Asperger’s syndrome. Because autism spectrum covers a wide range of developmental issues, many autistic people are nice people who have cognitive difficulties, but there are others in the autism spectrum range where it manifests itself in destructive ways

            While difficulties in social interaction are the main result of mild autism, two symptoms are commonly associated with it. The first is oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and secondly, rage disorders are often associated with ODD. The rage disorders manifest themselves as uncontrolled anger triggered by even the smallest issue. A wrong word or minor action that normal people would ignore triggers a profound rage in these autism spectrum individuals. During these rages, things get destroyed and people get hurt because the person has no control over their actions, sometimes for hours. The part of the brain that says calm down is no longer functioning properly. Road rage over a perceived slight like merging too closely or slowing down at the wrong time is a rage trigger. Normal people would say “no harm, no foul” and keep driving. But autism spectrum people descend into uncontrolled rage.

            And yes, I have personal experience with this side of autism. There is an effective medication, Risperdal, that helps them to control this form of autism, but you need to be diagnosed and most adults have not been. Fortunately we are becoming more aware and our children are getting the help that they need, but there is still a large pool of adults who will never be helped with this form of autism.

          • Marl

            @Bill Wallace….Sir, I beg to differ with you. I have been a professional in the field for a number of years. Autism and Asperger’s Syndromes are separate dx from ODD according to the DSM-5. ODD was categorized via separate diagnostic criteria beginning with the DSM-III back in the 80s and is separate from the diagnostic criterion by which Autism Spectrum Disorders are clinically diagnosed. ODD, however, though a separate diagnosis, may manifest comorbid with ADHD or other DX, but remains a separate dx unto itself. True, people may suffer anger management issues that lead to violence, especially if they have a gun pact under their gut that makes it easy for them to act impulsively toward another, but by no means does this indicate they have an Autism Spectrum Disorder. The killing between these two men had nothing to do with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Please consult with the current American Psychological Manuel (DSM-5) that lists the diagnostic criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorders to compare with ODD and rage.

          • Bill Wallace

            And you often see a pattern of rage incidents in these autistic adults that often manifests itself as domestic violence.

          • Marl

            Once again, I beg to differ: Your comment is a generalization, not fact. Domestic violence happens across all sections of people, and culture…it has nothing to do with Autism Spectrum Disorders per se.

          • Bill Wallace

            DSM is merely a guide to mental illness, not a definitive taxonomic document like a botanical classification is. It serves two purposes. The first is to organize thought about mental illness to help physicians narrow their diagnosis with real life input. Often an illness will fit several categories, but the patient particulars provide guidance to the most probable issue. The second is, of course, to provide billing information for the health insurance system.
            But let’s get back to the issue at hand. Are adults who demonstrate ODD and rage disorders mildly autistic? If you show me a kid with ODD and rage disorder, I will show you a kid that is incapable of developing meaningful social interactions with his peers because kids simply don’t put up with that type of crap the way that adults do in other adults. The inability to develop socially is part of the diagnostic criteria for autism and ODD and rage disorder caps the diagnosis. Hence a child who displays these attributes will be diagnosed as autistic. Now, to some extent, kids learn to cope during puberty, but the issues with ODD and rage never really go away. As you probably know autism is an organic brain disorder which will never disappear, but the brain can learn workarounds to some extent. But in past years, when we were not as aware of the entire spectrum of autism, ODD / rage disorder children were merely labeled as difficult kids. Now they are diagnosed as autistic. And if you should have been diagnosed as a child when the symptomology is most discernible, then you are still autistic as an adult. And you can’t seriously believe that an adult who demonstrates ODD and a pattern of rage disorder is capable of normal social interaction with their peers. This is one of the hallmarks of mild autism, even according to DSM.
            Therefore, I stand by my conclusions regarding autistic adults. This speaks to my premise that autism is not on the rise, but awareness is.

          • Marl

            @ Bill Wallace…Once again, the social/language deficits as they are attributes given diagnostically to individuals with autism are not characterized by ODD, nor rage disorder. You may not agree or like how the DSM-5 lays out the symptoms for the syndrome of Autism, but these are in place for both pratical and legal purposes, set out by the medical sector, and provided as a guide to treatment and the provision of services, just as other condions use a clustering of symptoms to target cancer, heart problems, diabetes, etc. for ultimate treatment . The characteristics by which Autism is dx suggests nothing about ODD symptoms, nor rage.

            To be sure, there are many risk factors for developiing ODD. A number of factors play a role in the development of ODD…. ODD is a complex problem involving a variety of influences, circumstances and possibly genetic components. No single factor causes ODD. Possible risk factors include:

            • Being abused or neglected
            • Exposure to violence
            • Family instability such as occurs with divorce, multiple moves, or changing schools or child care providers frequently
            • Financial problems in the family
            • Harsh or inconsistent discipline
            • Having a parent with a mood or substance abuse disorder
            • Lack of supervision
            • Moms and dads with a history of ADHD, ODD or conduct problems
            • Poor relationship with one or both moms and dads
            • Substance abuse

            Again, one should not generalize Autism with ODD, nor ragem to claim that two people carrying guns entered into road rage, who killed each other, as being products of Autism. As with the general population, someone who has experienced a bad day, or those with AD(H)D, Conduct Disorder, Panic/Anxiety Disorder, Bi-Polar,etc….any individual may be vulnerable to the risk factors leading to sudden, impulsive rage, that coupled with a gun at finger-tip reach, is likely to take his rage out on another person. Autism is not a factor to be generalized in this case.

          • Bill Wallace

            Really
            In my son’s middle school behavior management classroom, the parents to a person, said that their kids were born that way. These were all educated people who display none of the “characteristics” that you cited. They also said that somewhere in their family’s genetic history was a person who displayed ODD and rage disorder characteristics. For my adopted son, it was his birth father. For my wife, it was her grandfather. Her family said that she was difficult from birth, but her parents never displayed any of your “characteristics”. (she passed away from genetically related ovarian cancer). My son has grown into a talented fine young man with no trace of rage disorder because of proper medication and therapy. But he still needs his meds to maintain his composure.

            Everyone also criticized the mental health system for two basic reasons; Accessibility and diagnosis shopping. Because of the insurance company gatekeepers, we all had to fight our way in to receive services. After years of coping and being denied services by gatekeepers who claimed “bad parenting skills” and the crap that you cited, we took the advice of our family physician and forced our way in. He suggested showing up at the ER during one of his rage episodes. Then came a frustrating year of “jump to conclusion” diagnosis shopping which sometimes made the situation worse. Finally a fantastic doctor who actually took the time to observe him made the correct diagnosis and prescribed the correct FDA approved medication and therapy. And his diagnosis was confirmed by the school psychologist who observed him every day. But she was fired because our kid’s mental health is not in the budget any more. But many of his peers are still suffering from diagnosis shopping. Under staffed is no excuse for not properly observing the patient to arrive at the correct diagnosis.

            Now, thanks to saint Ronnie, the public mental health care system is effectively gone. For poor or less educated people, all of the gatekeepers (including private insurance) prevent access to mental healthcare in the name of saving money. They all refuse to believe the parents when they describe the behaviors and instead try to find lame excuses or blame the parents for what is clearly an organic disorder. It’s like the chicken and the egg. How do you cope with a child with these issues, when no help is available? The “characteristics” that you cite begin to come out in the frustrated parents, especially if one of them is also suffering from the same issues. The key is in providing mental health care immediately and proactively. Perhaps if the medical profession took this stuff seriously and insurance companies stopped refusing to cover mental health services, we could make progress. Denial of services leads to the cited issues, because the child’s mental health is the source of the problem. The nonsense that you cited rarely came first.

            And I have fostered kids. It was readily apparent both, that the children had inherent mental health issues and that the birth parents also had managed them very poorly. But considering how hard that we had to fight for the meager mental health services that DHS was willing to provide to a child with known problems, I would submit to you that the only services that the parents ever received from DHS was a visit from the child welfare cops. I also acted as a guardian ad litem and the parent’s universal complaint was no help for their kid’s mental health problems prior to DHS child welfare involvement. It’s too late then. And DHS always fought to keep control of the kids, but also always sought to limit the amount of services that they would provide. If they were serious about family reunification, they would have provided full on mental health services for the entire family long before the welfare cops showed up, but that rarely happened. And yes, the families also may have had other issues that needed integrated help. A monthly visit by a social worker, if even that frequently, is no substitute for real mental health care by real doctors.

            If you and your profession truly believes that nonsense that you just cited, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. And yes, the insurance industry and cheap skate politicians also share blame. But when you as a profession spout this nonsense, it only encourages them. Try to observe and learn, rather than relying on books. It’s time for you to get a clue!

            Proper funding for and access to mental health services is the key to solving our problems, but we only cut and cut. It is an investment that pays dividends in productive healthy people who do not become a lifelong burden to us.

          • Marl

            @ Bill Wallace…Sir, you have driffed off your original subject in which you suggested that the men who shot each other had Autism which you cited as being inclusive of Oppositional Difiant Disorder and rage. I mantain that Autism is a separate syndrome/disorder from ODD and Rage Disorder. Autism, in fact, is not considered a mental health disorder; it is a neurologic disorder of which no one cause has been determined. Nor is there any ‘one’ known cause for ODD, but they are different diagnoses all together and treatment is different for each. Each can exist co-morbidly with other diagnoses, but Autism is not the same as ODD.

            The causes of ODD may certainly have some genetic roots, as is one of the variables on the list I sent, but as the list indicates, ODD may also be caused by the number of other environmental variables in childhood relationships and home environments, etc. . My own adopted son, now age 40, has Autism and I have been working in the field professionally for many years with individuals having Autism. I brought people out of mental health units who were wrongly diagnosed and wrongly treated for mental health issues whereby I suspected their dx actually to be Aspergers. Given appropriate education, over the ‘mental health’ approach, they have flourished. I began doing this long before Aspergers was understood.

            However, as I have said before, ODD and rage are not part and parcel of the symptoms/characteristics by which Autism is diagnosed. Autism is quite a complex neurologic disorder which, early on, was considered a psychologic disorder until the late 80s when a wonderful Dr. whom I have worked with, was able to do the first pathology research work on the deceased brains of three individuals who were known to have the characteristics of Autism. Her findings led the way to our current understanding and moved the syndrome from a psychologic one to neurlogic in that she was able to see areas of the brain affected at the early age, with the receeding of cells in the brain stem, between ages 2 and 3, when Autism generally is diagnosed,

            I understand your frustration with the mental health system in this country…health insurance companies have not provided coverage; schools are unable to provide supports as they are needed, and society, in general, is not understanding of the needs of individuals suffering from such issues. But, once again, ODD has nothing to do with the diagnostic criteria for Autism, so I stand my ground that the men engaged in this shoot out acted highly impulsively, whereby havinig a gun at their ready disposal, they pulled the trigger of death. This can not be blamed on Autism, for Autism had nothing to do with, nor the characteristics associated with ODD.

          • Bill Wallace

            Oh And the main reason that your argument that these “family characteristics” are causative elements is bogus is that there are significantly more families with your causative “characteristics” with normal kids than those with mentally ill kids.The statistical math just doesn’t work in your favour.

          • Bill Wallace

            Ah, I forgot to make my point of all of this. All of the kids who were treated for autism spectrum based OOD / Rage using FDA approved treatments were successful and left the program to become good high school students. That was about 75% of the kids in the city wide program. Only one student left the program with a different diagnosis. The rest, who are still in diagnosis shopping or truly have other issues are still in supervised educational settings. While this figure is anecdotal, kids talk among themselves about things that concern them and parents do too.

            While this is a small sample, 75% is still a significant number. Can the extant adult population who display ODD / Rage disorders be far behind in the incidence of autism spectrum as the root cause of these issues?

    • Frank

      Nope, you’ve got it wrong – we can’t be free unless the profitability of the gun industry is protected despite any and all shoot outs and mass murders.

      After all Reagan replaced the values of community with “protecting private profits” and the nation bought it..

  • marecek

    “While it may be true — as the NRA says — that a good man with a gun can stop a bad man with a gun, they fail to mention that both may die in the process.”

    Or that the bad man might stop the good man. Or, and this is where the NRA’s premises are most flawed, both men may be neither “bad” nor “good” (life not being a fairy tale or a comic book), but just ordinary men somewhere in between. But the NRA foolishly paints a false picture, putting in the minds of gun owners that they are the “good guy” so that anyone they happen to have a run-in with is therefore a “bad” guy, justifying the use of lethal force to subdue him. Exactly the recipe for disaster that we least need.

    • Jim

      My sentiments exactly. Thanks for posting.

    • Kim B

      Couldn’t have said it better myself, marecek.

    • Donna

      Well said, Marecek.

  • marina brown

    I am physically messed up. I really could not fight against most even not physically fit men.

    If someone sees me as a target and attacks me having a weapon of some sort evens the odds. Police are not an option. Even the Supreme court states that police have no obligation to protect – only enforce the law. …anyways, around here the police can be depended upon. They are only about 15 minutes away when seconds count.

    If i had to ‘Duke it out’ with some asshole i would just be a smear on the pavement. Is this what you peaceful gun control people want ?

    • https://www.facebook.com/dane.calderon Dane Calderon

      I hate to say it, but if you’re handicapped, you’d probably just be giving the bad guy your gun. Have you thought about a tazer or pepper spray?

      • https://www.facebook.com/dane.calderon Dane Calderon

        Also, if the police are supposed to enforce the law, then they need laws to enforce. If everybody on the street can carry around loaded guns, then the police can’t do anything until someone has already started shooting. Wouldn’t it make more sense to not have every jerk on the street carrying a loaded gun in the first place?

    • bosfaninva

      And if the attacker has a gun you’ll still lose, and your gun will be taken from you and used on other people.

    • maurinsky

      I am physically disabled, and I don’t carry a gun. I don’t feel that afraid. Maybe if I had an abusive ex or something, I could see wanting to have some protection, but I don’t fear random violence. Is there a reason you think you’d be seen as a target? Do you think it’s a problem that the police can’t be depended upon?

      I’m sure you have your reasons, but I’m grateful that I live free from so much fear.

  • http://gravatar.com/tmitsss tmitsss

    Gun Owner = Gun Nut

    • http://gravatar.com/lonnie93041 lonnie93041

      Not all of us are nuts tmitsss. Unfortunately we can’t seem to find a way to get the guns out of the hands of the nuts. The NRA and their sheep, uh I mean faithful followers won’t let us. I don’t know what the answer is. If you do please let us know.

  • Jerry

    Lance is dead on James was driving to slow for Robert and this for some reason Robert went totally crazy and shot into James car with his wife and mother or mother inlaw in the vehicle. If someone shoots at me or my family you bet your ass I am shooting back. So sorry for James to happen opon this person that totally lost his mind.

    • https://www.facebook.com/dane.calderon Dane Calderon

      Robert wouldn’t have shot the guy’s family. All James did was kill Robert. If James wasn’t armed, Robert would be in prison instead of in the ground. That’s the only difference. Sorry to ruin your fantasy.

    • Brian McPhillips

      Jerry, according to the article above, BOTH men exited their vehicle and started arguing before they started shooting at each other. No where does it say, or even imply, that the other family members were targeted. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing …..

      • http://gravatar.com/lonnie93041 lonnie93041

        Brian you know damned good and well innocents could have been killed even though they weren’t “targeted” so spare me the bullshit. What makes you think these clowns were John Wayne or Dirty Harry? What makes you think the rounds couldn’t ricochet off something and hit someone? What makes you think those two idiots were rational and cool headed enough to take time to aim carefully and fire? I’m an agnostic but I’m tempted to say someone or something was watching over the families and bystanders that day.

  • http://gravatar.com/shifflett shifflett

    I love the way you sum up your articles Mr. Cull. They always seem to drive the point home nicely.

  • Sam

    If they’d both been UNARMED, they could have just duked it out and both men likely would have survived.

    • https://www.facebook.com/dane.calderon Dane Calderon

      True. Guns are for pu$$ies. There’s nothing less manly or less tough than carrying around a gun because you’re too scared to go to the gas station without a pistol.

  • Drew

    Moral of the story: Live by the gun, die by the gun. This is what you can expect if America becomes the Wild West again.

    • Tom S

      The Wild West only exists in movies and TV shows. It really WASN’T as gun happy and bloodthirsty as protrayed. The shootout in the street where 2 men face off and draw? Happened less than a dozen times. It was more likely a shot in the back (Cody), and even that was most likely less rare than any one week in today’s society.

      • https://www.facebook.com/sassyalice Sherri Lucas-Gibson

        Guns were checked in at the jail.. yes guns were a big issue in some towns. That was WHY they needed to be checked in some places.

    • https://www.facebook.com/FormlessPoet Erin Thomas

      America never stopped being the Wild West, Drew.

    • Old Gypsy

      In the “Wild West” guns were banned in Dodge City, Tombstone and several other towns.

  • Lance

    So let’s see, wack-job Taylor chases down a local business man who is driving with his family, goes off on him in a parking lot and starts shooting. Pullum, defends himself and his family and pays for it with his life. And most of you people here think that he deserved what he got. I suppose that you would have been happier if Pullum had not been legally armed and his wife and mother-in-law were also kill by the wack-job.
    Good for you Amerikans, we should disarm the legally armed. You will deserve the country that you are trying to get.

    • Bob Cull

      I can only speak for myself, Lance, but I don’t think that anyone “deserved what he got.” This was a tragedy but it was also an illustration of the folly of allowing so many people to run around armed. This is not the old west, hell, even the old west was not the old west that so many think it was, what you see in the movies and on TV is not what it really was most of those “showdowns” were just plain old fashioned murder, a shot to the back from a hiding place they didn’t meet face to face at high noon and see who could draw the fastest.

    • https://www.facebook.com/james.m.ledbetter Matt Ledbetter

      do you think either one would have been so bold if they knew they both were armed?

      • https://www.facebook.com/rjgwood Rhonda J. Greenhaw

        Do you think either of them would have been so bold if they had both been unarmed??? Also, both would now be alive. Sheesh.

        • TJ

          Correctomundo.

        • Alan

          To say both would be alive sans either having firearms is false- it’s assuming one didn’t beat the other’s head in against the sidewalk, or that one didn’t have an unknown medical condition causing their death; we as readers on this site cannot say with any certainty what either of these two would be today.

          • Me

            Yep. FL has already established the sidewalk as a deadly weapon….

      • Tom S

        Good question. But considering than some states don’t allow OC, just CC (like FL), the point may be moot, as most CCWers aren’t about to walk around shouting “I’m armed!”.

    • https://www.facebook.com/dane.calderon Dane Calderon

      Say what you want, Lance, but I’m willing to bet 100 bucks that you thought Trayvon Martin got what he deserved. Am I right?

    • mary

      Were they both legally armed? One poster said they both had legal guns.

    • http://www.dzyak.com Brian

      “I suppose that you would have been happier if Pullum had not been legally armed and his wife and mother-in-law were also kill by the wack-job.
      Good for you Amerikans, we should disarm the legally armed. You will deserve the country that you are trying to get.” – Lance

      It’s because so-called “legal responsible” gun owners demand virtually unlimited permission to own virtually any guns they desire with absolutely zero attachment to responsibility and regulation, all of the “bad guys” have an equal opportunity to obtain the same weapons. It is the gun fetish on the part of “legal” gun nuts who are creating the environment by which bad guys can get the guns they want (either legally or by stealing them from “responsible” gun owners.

      EVERY so-called “responsible legal gun owner” is culpable in every incidence of gun violence because it is you who enable the bad guys to have those weapons in the first place.

      We don’t deserve this nation. We demand better and we can start by actually enforcing the intent of The Second Amendment and only allowing those who are charged with national security and public safety to have ACCESS to ARMS necessary and appropriate.

  • http://gravatar.com/testing2 testing2Given

    We need more of this. Much more. Every time a right wing shit bag NRA Christian Republican kills another right wing shit bag NRA Christian Republican, America wins.

    • bigpenguin

      *applause*

    • dan

      Yeah, gotta even out all those inner city democrats that kill each other by the dozens every week.

    • Rene Taylor

      Amen brother

    • BtotheG

      You are an ignorant, sadistic, immoral person. Calling for more murder? Crawl under a rock and don’t come out.

      • https://www.facebook.com/dane.calderon Dane Calderon

        By being a gun advocate, YOU are calling for more murder. Crawl down from your high horse.

        • arizonaguy87

          No. By being a gun advocate he is advocating the Second Amendment. This comment thread should be deleted, as the sentiment here is absolutely disgusting. If I were to say,”We need more of this. Much more. Every time a left-wing socialist CDC-loving Godless Democrat aborts a future left-wing socialist CDC-loving Godless Democrat, America wins.” You’d all be losing your shit.

          Here’s a tip. If you can swap another (or opposite) noun into your vapid foaming-at-the-mouth vitriol, and suddenly it offends you, you probably shouldn’t say it.

          “If you can’t say something nice, you shouldn’t say anything at all.” – Thumper

          • Ryotan22

            I know this comment is really late but I find this thread really entertaining. Thumper, you just came out against the first amendment in favor of the second amendment. So if they don’t shut up, what you gonna do? Shoot us?

            No need to answer it was rhetorical.

  • arizonaguy87

    Firearms, some people can carry them their entire lives without having to shoot anyone, and some people can’t have one for ten minutes without putting a hole in their own foot. It all comes down to discipline and self-control (and training).

    Any time anyone asks me if they should buy a gun, I tell them that if they have to ask then they shouldn’t own a firearm. The conversation can change from there, but that’s my default answer. If you are questioning your ability to control yourself with a firearm, don’t get one. Please. Save a life; maybe your own.

    A gun is not a threat, or a toy, or a status symbol. It doesn’t make you cool, or a gangster, or an assassin. A gun has one purpose. To kill. Well, and maybe put holes in paper. As its owner, the decision, and any and all responsibilities for that decision, are on you. Be you a hunter shooting game, a cop on duty, a citizen in a dangerous city, or a degenerate with no value for anyone’s life but your own, if that. It just seems that somewhere along the line, we stopped holding people accountable. Plea bargains and deals are all the rage, why fight a case and maybe lose when you can guarantee a small win and keep up your ratio?

    Four Rules of Firearms.
    1. Treat every gun as if it’s loaded, even if it isn’t.
    2. Don’t point it at anything you don’t want destroyed.
    3. Don’t touch the trigger until you are about to shoot.
    4. Be sure of your target, and what is beyond it. You are responsible for the full flight path of your bullet.

    (Unless you’re a cop.)

    • Rene Taylor

      Self control???? Look at the addiction rate in this country. You think people are going to have any more self control with a gun?? Self control eludes most Americans. We have entitlement issues as a society.

    • Cynthia R Dunnaway Standard

      arizonaguy87,the most sensible answer to this gun business,I have ever seen. I used to carry long before oc or ccw. And was fearful that someone was going to make me lose my cool and I end up killing someone. Not once(even after using my weapon one time)did it ever occur to me,that I would miss(as I did)I would end up hitting something(thank God,it was an object,not an innocent bystander). After all that,I still carried for many more years,but finally gave up my gun 7 years ago. I believe in the 2nd amendment,but everyone does not need or have the capabilities to carry a gun. Thank you again for your most sensible answer. I truly hope you respond to God Bless the President of the United States on FB witht the same answer. Alot of people need to see your comment.

  • Casey

    We’d never have this problem if bullets cost $900 a pop. It’s not gun control, it’s BULLET control. You really really really have to hate someone to shoot them. But then make non lethal bullets like 50 cents each. This would solve SO MUCH.

    • http://www.realultimatepower.net Johnny

      You’re enforcing that how? Men with guns, right? But those men would have costumes, so that would make it cool.

      • geboraco

        Casey is just bringing up a comedy bit that Chris Rock did a long time ago.

  • The Stevester

    That’s a shame….

  • http://facebook tariq williams

    I know I should not laugh at something like this, but I have to admit that it is funny.

  • John Locke

    You all are a bunch of morons. All of you people are to ignorant to be alive. Two men die and all you can do is twist and spin the tragedy into a political tool to further an agenda. The man that followed Pullum into the parking lot was an idiot also. You people are no better. Pullum used his firearm in self defense after being attacked and tragically died. The other moron also died and while I have no feelings for this it is still shameful that you heartless people who claim to hold all life sacred and special and worth fighting to preserve instead celebrate the death of two people. All of you should be ashamed to be alive.

    • Drew

      Whatever happened to people duking it out with fists? There should be no firearms to settle an argument, lest you want to go back to the days of the OK Corral. Both of them were idiots and paid the ultimate price. If this is the kind of society you advocate for, what more can we say?

      • http://gravatar.com/electrakitty Sarah

        Hitting each other with fists doesn’t make either one of them right or wrong either. Just saying.

        • Tom S

          No, but GENERALLY, it results in fewer deaths. But maybe more court cases, since there are survivors to press charges against. The prison-industrial complex should be clamoring for gun control for this reason alone.

      • https://plus.google.com/+ScottLockwoodIII Scott Lockwood III

        Don’t bother to check the facts. One of them mortally wounded the other before the second man went and got his gun from his vehicle. How was he a moron? You really should stop and think about what a terrible person you are.

    • https://www.facebook.com/james.m.ledbetter Matt Ledbetter

      If neither had firearms, both would still be alive.

      • Tom S

        Not necessarily, the deaths would have just been harder. And there would have been a much greater chance that one lived. It is still quite easy to kill with a knife, bat, Maglite, etc, but it is also easier to defend yourself against those weapons.

        • Frank

          You are mistaken, it is NOT easy to kill with a knife unless you have been properly trained and are in good physical condition, ditto for a bat, if the other party is much bigger he’ll probably take the bat from the attacker. An the maglite, well you’d better have enough strength and hit in the right place, quite complicated really.

  • http://gravatar.com/sheikyerbouti2 sheikyerbouti2

    Anger + Guns = 2 men dead

  • https://www.facebook.com/chuck.hultquist Chuck Hultquist

    2 down, 150,000,000 to go

  • https://www.facebook.com/camperben Benjamin Bender

    If either one had been unarmed, the survival chances of both would have increased. One having a gun caused a dangerous situation. Both being armed would cause both to “shoot in self defense”. A fine example of how owning a gun got someone killed when perhaps he would have made it home with a bloody nose if he wasn’t (or wouldnt have had the guts to pull over in the first place unarmed)

    • https://www.facebook.com/james.m.ledbetter Matt Ledbetter

      perfectly said.

    • Dan

      Both men were cowards, since carrying a gun gave them the guts in any situation. They didn’t want to get a bloody nose. They wanted to kill the other in self defense. And proof their cowardliness.

      • https://www.facebook.com/mel.h.sr Mel Haun Sr

        The one man may have had a good reason to have a weapon as he ran a filling station. It may have been in an area where it was a good idea to be armed. I will give him that. And I suspect he had no reason to go get that weapon until after he was shot. So blaming both is a bit over the top.
        That said, at first reading, it is sad, but sorta funny in a way… as in “two gun nuts down”, even if unfair. Here is a prayer for the guys Wife and family who had to witness this. The problem is of course the Gun culture we have let NRA push to develop for gun sales. They were once an organization for gun OWNERS. I dropped my membership long ago.

  • Larry Carrigan

    With all the talk of another government shutdown, Syria, etc. it’s refreshing to hear some good news once in awhile. The phrase “From my cold dead hands” seems to ring true in this instance. Thank you Bob.

  • https://www.facebook.com/cameron.lowes Cameron Lowes

    evolution at work………

    • https://www.facebook.com/bill.barany Bill Barany

      If we would just listen to the NRA the more guns we give to the gun nuts the safer we will all be. This article is proof to their belief.

    • JJ Avignon

      This had nothing to do with natural selection. This particular story has more to do with Wayne LaPierre than Charles Darwin.

  • Keyser Soze
    • http://www.realultimatepower.net Johnny

      But those guys had costumes and badges. Costumes and badges make the shooting acceptable.

  • http://rogueoperator.wordpress.com rogueoperator

    Why don’t you f*cktards go teabag each other instead of wasting sane Americans’ time with this shit?

  • Eli

    It can’t be the guns. We need to make sure all cars are registered and licensed, that everyone has had their safety training for how to operate a motor vehicle, and even carries insurance to make sure that if there is an accident the victim will be reimbursed. That will definitely make sure that incidents like this will never happen.

    Oh, wait…

    • joan waldhalm

      love it!

  • CJ

    Oh geez…such responsible gun owners there. Carrying a gun around in your car will keep you safe. Yea…right.

    • https://www.facebook.com/Roadgypy Nate Lintz

      obviously, yes it will. If he hadn’t been able to defend his wife and mother as he died in an unprovoked attack, there would have been 3 dead innocents instead of a hero and a scumbag.

      • ts

        pure hyperbole. it’s far more likely that this never escalates beyond honks and fingers if either one of these douchebags isn’t sure he holds the trump card.

  • shawn

    I want their ammo

  • Richard D. Cameron

    Two fewer armed morons to be concerned about.

  • Jim

    Natural selection at work.

  • john

    The obvious problem was that there weren’t enough guns at the scene of the incident. Somehow more guns and bigger guns would have resulted in more safety. Don’t ask me how just believe.

    • http://gravatar.com/electrakitty Sarah

      Well, if his wife and his mother had guns. . .BIG guns. . .I mean, that’s how it works in the movies. Movies and real life are pretty much the same, right?

    • marecek

      Well, if Mr. Pullum’s mother in law had had her semi with her, she could have taken out the bad guy (i.e., Taylor) and saved the good guy.

  • http://gravatar.com/kef1950 Karen Fortier

    I am usually a compassionate person, however this is one instance that leaves me feeling only disgust. Stupid, ignorant people can shoot at one another all day long, but do it where innocent bystanders can’t be hurt or killed! I don’t feel sorry for either of the two dead idiots…period!

    • http://gravatar.com/vagrarian vagrarian

      Amen. A stray bullet could have hurt or killed an innocent party. These two men were idiots. As the article says, this whole good-guy-with-a-gun thing is a nice blurb but there’s no guarantee the good guy is a better shot, or will survive, or that innocent people won’t be hurt, or even die. Even most gun owners I know would consider these men to be dolts. Dead over tailgating?!?!

      • http://johnfmayer.wordpress.com johnfmayer

        Do you really think those who carry guns and use them in such situations—and one of these threatened with a gun before the other produced his own, which sure sounds like self-defense to me—don’t realize that they might not win the day. The one being tail-gated here might have saved his mother-in-law and wife by sacrificing his own.

    • BtotheG
    • Paula

      I feel only a vague sense of satisfaction, but what can one feel in a world overrun by stupidity? It’s very hard to be on earth.

  • https://www.facebook.com/eric.speas Eric Speas
  • Raji the Green Witch

    Maybe all the gun nuts will end up shooting each other and thin out the herd to manageable levels. We can always hope. Unfortunately, innocent people are going to eventually get caught in the cross fire.

Scroll To Top
website security Website Security Test