By on April 11, 2016

Screen capture of video from Will Smith road rage shooting

It’s an all-too-familiar tale in the Crescent City of New Orleans, a city that has held the dubious title of “Most Dangerous City in America” on multiple occasions. 164 murders occurred in the city limits in 2015, the fourth highest murder rate per capita of any American city and the 32nd most of any city in the world, so it’s not unusual to hear of a shooting that occurred inside the Lower Garden District on Saturday night.

It’s a bit more unusual to hear that it might have been motivated by road rage, although we have certainly heard of that story before.

Yet, when a shooting involves one of the most beloved people in the history of the city, and when it begins to seem like there’s more to the story than just a traffic accident gone wrong, I begin to wonder how Will Smith ended up dead, slumped over the wheel of his vehicle, while his killer stood by calmly and waited to be arrested for murdering a local legend. 

Before we start, let me say that I once ran in the same circles as Smith, the former Ohio State and New Orleans Saints football player who was gunned down behind the wheel of his G63 AMG SUV in New Orleans over the weekend.

He was arriving at Ohio State as I was exiting, and I was friends and former teammates with a lot of the Buckeyes at that time. He was also a customer of mine when I was a sales manager with T-Mobile in 2004. He was a newly drafted and signed member of the Saints, and he was proud to have a bright red Range Rover with huge, chrome rims, which he always parked right in front of the door to my store. He was the personification of the phrase “gentle giant,” never raising his voice above a whisper or asking to be treated any differently from any other customer.

Over the next several seasons, Smith became one of New Orleans’ favorite sons. No, Smith wasn’t born in New Orleans, but he was drafted by the Saints at a time when being a Saints fan meant that you likely wore a paper bag over your head to the game. He was one of the few team members who stuck with the team through the horrors of Hurricane Katrina, and he was a Pro Bowler in the first season after the Superdome reopened following the hurricane. He led the team in sacks during their miracle Super Bowl run. He played every down of his career for the Saints, a career that was cut short by a ligament tear in his knee. In short, New Orleans loved Smith, and Smith loved them right back.

When the story first broke, I wondered if perhaps Smith had exited his vehicle and threatened some poor man who just happened to bump into him. After all, the sight of a man Smith’s size, every bit of 6’3″ and 282 pounds, enraged because of some damage to his six-figure SUV, might inspire anybody to feel threatened enough to defend himself. After all, Smith was one of the players suspended by the NFL for his role in Bountygate, so perhaps he wasn’t as nice a guy as I thought he was. What is the body of a former NFL Pro Bowl defensive player if not a “deadly weapon”? If a man that size came at me, I’d be hoping and praying that I had a gun in the glove compartment.

Except it doesn’t seem like that’s what happened at all. As the facts come out about the killing, it turns out that the man who shot Smith, Cardell Hayes, is the son of a man who was killed by NOPD police in 2005 as he allegedly threatened officers with a knife. Hayes sued the department, settling out of court five years ago. On Saturday night, Smith and his wife were having dinner with one of the officers named in the lawsuit, William Ceravolo.

Although the NOPD states that Hayes and Smith did not know each other, Hayes had worked security for the Saints while Smith was a member of the team. In his mugshot, Hayes appears to be even larger than Smith, measuring at 6’6″ and looking just as broad. This isn’t his first brush with the law, either. Hayes was arrested in 2014 and charged with possession of an illegal weapon and drug paraphernalia.

In the official police statement, it’s said that Smith’s G63 was struck so hard by Hayes’ Hummer H2 that Smith’s SUV was knocked into the Impala in front of him at the intersection. The Lower Garden District of New Orleans is a residential area — why was Hayes traveling so quickly? Is it possible that he was in a mentally unstable state? Could he have been angered at the fact that Smith — a man he once protected, perhaps even admired — was dining with one of the men accused of murdering his father? Was he following him home on purpose? Did Hayes intend to instigate an incident, perhaps even intending to kill Smith?

Then, after killing Smith in cold blood, why did he just wait for the police to arrive? Why did he shoot Smith’s wife in the leg, and then just stand there and watch her suffer on the ground?

Although Hayes’ lawyer has come forth with a statement in which he says his client was “not the aggressor in this incident,” it’s hard to see how he could have been anything but. He struck Smith’s vehicle. Smith was still in his vehicle, his door only partly open, when he was shot multiple times by Hayes in the back and torso. The New Orleans Police Department stated that they will use every means available to them to prosecute Hayes and bring him to justice. As it currently stands, Hayes has been charged with second-degree murder and is being held on a $1 million bond, having killed a man who was synonymous with the city he represented on the football field.

It’s easy to say that tougher gun laws are needed — except that it’s already illegal to conceal carry a handgun almost anywhere in the city of New Orleans. Also, considering Hayes’ record, it’s at least likely that the gun he used to kill Smith was neither legally obtained nor legally carried. The NOPD arrived within four minutes of being alerted of the incident — not bad, but certainly not fast enough to have saved Smith’s life.

And in a city that literally has a murder every other day, one wonders how anybody can feel safe. I’ve spent my share of time in NOLA, on Frenchmen Street, in the French Quarter, on the stages of the Jazz and Heritage Festival. It’s a beautiful city with a rich heritage of music and culture, but it’s also a dangerous place to be anybody, much less a wealthy man with a target on his back.

As more details emerge about this case in the coming days, I feel certain about one thing: this was not just a traffic incident gone wrong. Although Occam’s Razor easily shreds other, more sinister theories at this time, there are too many connections, too many coincidences for Smith to have ended up dead without some malicious intent on Hayes’ part. Regardless of why this fender bender resulted in the death of a man, a husband, and a father, it’s all incredibly tragic.

And it all makes me wonder: What would I have done in Smith’s situation? What would any of us do if confronted by a huge, boiling mad man with a gun? What could have been done to prevent any of this from happening in the first place?

Regardless, I can tell you this: we can never get to a place in society where we are afraid to act like men. We can’t tolerate those who would bully us on our streets, whether by reckless, inconsiderate behavior or with purposefully evil intentions. Though I’ve managed to avoid making too many gratuitous enemies in my day, I can’t help but think that if a Road Rager ever comes at my family and me, I can assure you that I’d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

Maybe it’s time to go get that concealed carry permit.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

222 Comments on “Bark’s Bites: How Did a Fender Bender Turn Into Murder in New Orleans?...”


  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    “Before we start, let me say that I once ran in the same circles as Smith, the former Ohio State and New Orleans Saints football player who was gunned down behind the wheel of his G63 AMG SUV in New Orleans over the weekend.

    He was arriving at Ohio State as I was exiting, and I was friends and former teammates with a lot of the Buckeyes at that time. He was also a customer of mine when I was a sales manager with T-Mobile in 2004. He was a newly drafted and signed member of the Saints, and he was proud to have a bright red Range Rover with huge, chrome rims, which he always parked right in front of the door to my store.”

    Totally irrelevant to the article, Jalopnik-style “14-17 1/2 year old” readership base “whoa, you ran with a future NFL pro-bowler and his friends?!/”sick Range Rover, bro” content.

    • 0 avatar

      I think my insights into Smith’s personality that I gained from my multiple interactions with him are relevant to how I feel he might have acted in such a situation. Also, they might color my judgment. Sorry that you disagree.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus_3.0_AX4N

      I see you had a nice big bowl of Stupid Flakes this morning.

      You post random, unrelated crap all the time. His statements were very much on point and totally relevent. He posted what he knew of the man because the guy is dead and this is an article about him.

      If this isnt the article for relating personal experience with him, where else should it be?

      If he went off about once seeing the actor Will Smith in an Arizona Denny’s 5 years ago in this article about a different Will Smith, you may have had a point. As it stands, your hatred of the writer is not justification enough for calling him out.

      If your intention was to show us all how petty, bitter and idiotic you are, we should roll out the “Mission Acomplished” banner in your honor.

    • 0 avatar
      dougjp

      That never donned on me, but seeing the headline made me disappointed, as in why do I have to see this kind of s___ not relevant to cars in here, or if in some way somebody can make an argument for this being a TTAC subject, then why wasn’t there a general topic on the issue long ago.

      However I saw that the personal knowledge was the excuse to write about the subject, and background for that reason, so no problem.

    • 0 avatar
      porschespeed

      I’ve spent a few hours debating Brad Pitt. In high school.
      I’ve spent a day with Wolfgang Puck talking business. 20 years ago.
      I’ve had dinner with 3 friends and Robert Reich. When he was Mr. Secretary.

      So effen what? None of that is a big deal. I would be laughed out of a room if I claimed to “know” anything relevant about any of them. Let alone making any of those interactions provide any insight for a story.

      I guess to kids who grew up on Facebook, selling someone an Apple 5S and unlimited data, and knowing someone’s team mates is somehow what passes for “knowing”.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        This Bark’s Bites article centers around the merits/flaws of the C63 Mercedes, Hummer H2 & Chevrolet Impala.

        “In the official police statement, it’s said that Smith’s G63 was struck so hard by Hayes’ Hummer H2 that Smith’s SUV was knocked into the Impala in front of him at the intersection.”

        See?

        There’s that entire sentence that Bark crafted (the only one that deals with anything automotive in the entire op/ed & brag-rag).

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        Yet you had the nerve to come here, express that knowledge, then brush it off.

        Good lord, I don’t know who’s worse? The guy saying he knew somebody in a semi-professional level or the guys ragging on him for mentioning when he died? Get over yourselves.

        Frankly, if it were my site I would have thrown DW on his ear a while ago with his hamfisted attacks on people’s social identities using some pretty bigoted attitudes. This just further proves that DW is more vitriol stupidity than objective intellect at times.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          “hamfisted attacks on people’s social identities…”

          What’s a “social identity?”

          What “social identity” did I attack and when?

          I am just learning these social media quantum AI meta-terms.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            Does this have anything to do with what you’re social media meta-analysis, Xeranar ?

            http://www.wpcoe.com/images/toiletsinscotland.jpg

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            I was being polite, let me break it down for you.

            90% of your posts are self-righteous dreck cloaking your personal views in a pseudo-intellectual front using demographics as your cover for making statements.

      • 0 avatar
        Jack Baruth

        Bark played football in high school with and again many of Smith’s teammates.

        I can tell you that most weekend nights during Bark’s first few years at OSU, he was out and about running with his football pals.

        He knows more than he’s saying here, because if he said everything he know, you guys would come after him for bragging about being pals with pro athletes.

        Hell, Bark was part of a team that won a Gus Macker tournament. The other three guys on the team all signed NFL or MLB contracts. It’s more than being a phone salesman to the famous.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          This is bull$hit, man.

          Every time I break Bark’s balls, you ride in like the proverbial protective big brother and somehow manage to make me feel badly somehow.

        • 0 avatar
          Dave M.

          Don’t waste the 10101s Jack. Haters are gonna hate. Personally I thought it added strong flavor to the story, even if Bark had just known him through the phone business.

          I also thought Bark did a great job trying to scratch the surface of what would compel Hayes to do such a thing. What switch flipped?

          • 0 avatar
            porschespeed

            Well, as the rest of the story starts to spill out, our ‘golden boy’ did a hit and run on the Hummer a few blocks back on video. The Hummer guy was on the phone with 911 trying to get a plate on this football hero.

            There is also tell from witnesses of our ‘victim’ himself having a gun (which remains to be validated).

            Given the way-beyond-average statistical probability of an NFL player committing not only a crime, but a violent one, I don’t think I’d admit to knowing one if I did.

          • 0 avatar
            porschespeed

            And now it’s been validated that the hero/victim was also armed.

            There’s witness statements that say he was aggressive. Can;t wait for a jury to hear this, neither can the “attacker”.

            Your brother hung out with NFL trash, which you should be embarrassed about, not proud of.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            PansySpeed feels all validated now.

  • avatar
    VoGo

    Americans have this odd perversion that causes many to react to gun violence with the desire to go out and buy a gun. And the cycle continues.

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      Why is it a perversion to want to protect yourself?

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        Because the number of crimes prevented by private citizens carrying firearms is miniscule compared to the number of deaths caused by private citizens legally carrying firearms.

        • 0 avatar
          dwford

          I think you meant deaths caused by ILLEGAL firearms. Legally carrying people have taken the time to get themselves licensed, trained, fingerprinted, background checked, etc. They are the ones with something to lose if they misuse a firearm.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            You mean like the ‘legal’ firearms that Adam Lanza used to murder the children at Sandyhook? After all his mother had done everything legally required to acquire them.

            And the number of murders committed with or suicides using legally acquired firearms is still beyond the scope of reasonableness.

          • 0 avatar
            VCplayer

            Adam Lanza isn’t a great example. Those guns were technically stolen from his mother after he murdered her.

            Lanza is also atypical of most gun violence in America. What happened at Sandy Hook is tragic beyond measure, but it’s also a statistical outlier in numerous ways. His case says a lot about how we should care for the mentally ill, but from a statistical perspective it doesn’t provide any useful data about gun violence.

        • 0 avatar
          porschespeed

          The DoJ (no friend to individuals’ rights) estimates there are 100.000 defensive gun uses every year. There are other estimates that are higher.

          There are maybe 12,000 firearm homicides per year. Of that, 50% are black males killing other black males, generally over drugs, drug money, and territory.

          All homicides have been in steady decline since the early 1990s. It’s down 31% since 1993. We are almost at historic lows.

          In Texas they track crime by CCW holders. It’s a lower rate than police officers.

          In fact, if you aren’t a black male in the recreational chemical trade, you’re safer than in most of the EU.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            Thank you for posting this. There’s a deafening echo chamber employed by gun control totalitarians which drowns out the truth about defensive uses of firearms.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Protecting yourself is one thing. But when Americans buy so many guns that the authorities can’t possibly regulate the ones sold to criminals, “needing” to own a gun becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

    • 0 avatar
      Sam Hall

      Truth. I mean any sane person knows that owning a firearm will instantly turn you into an unstable person with one foot in the criminal world, who will spontaneously (or not) crash your vehicle into another’s and then murder them for the high crime of being friends with one of your enemies.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        If you are unstable and unarmed you are limited in the amount of damage you can do. If you are armed, then you can inflict a great deal of harm. And even a relatively sane and stable person may ‘go postal’ given the right set of circumstances.

        When or if they do, if they are unarmed the problem caused may be relatively benign, if they are armed it may be a social tragedy.

    • 0 avatar
      Coopdeville

      “NATIONS have this odd perversion that causes many to react to OUTSIDE MILITARY THREATS with the desire to go out and STRENGTHEN THEIR OWN MILITARY. And the cycle continues.”

      It might be something to do with our nature, in which we understand that being inadequately prepared to meet a threat might result in our destruction. One could argue that better gun laws/societal improvements/human outreach programs will have a much better overall effect on lowering gun violence than every citizen arming themselves, and one would be right, just like diplomacy and aid programs usually build better allies than military activity.

      But societal improvements are slow and don’t protect me in the moment someone is threatening me and my family.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        And statistics prove that the possibility of using a legal firearm to protect yourself is smaller than the possibility that it may ‘accidentally’ injure or kill a member of your own family.

        • 0 avatar
          Coopdeville

          Statistics show that my home has very slim real world chance of being damaged or demolished by a tornado or other natural disaster, and that there is a strong possibility that I’m wasting my money, but I still carry catastrophic loss insurance with a cripplingly high deductible.

          I hope to never use either “insurance” and consider both to be an option of last resort, but I wouldn’t dream of not insuring myself.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            True, coop, but then again, I doubt someone would have much success robbing a bank, mugging someone, raping a woman, or shooting up a school by brandishing a catastrophic loss binder.

            I’m sorry, but guns are a category all to themselves. They’re not like knives, or cars, or baseball bats, or any of the other straw-man objects that some gun rights types like to introduce into arguments like these. Guns are designed with one purpose in mind – kill or wound another person or being. That’s all they’re useful for. That puts them in a separate plane as far as this kind of argument is concerned.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            I don’t fully disagree, coopdeville, but a closer analogy to Arthur’s point would be if the catastrophic loss insurance itself was also capable of demolishing your house and was statistically more likely to do so than the natural disaster.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          To each his own.

          Every situation is different and law-abiding adults should make their own decisions on firearms ownership and carry.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            If only that were possible, thelaine,
            But the gun lobby has successfully thwarted the overwhelming will of the people to limit gun ownership by the insane.
            Even the vast majority of NRA members want guns out of the hands of criminals and insane people, but the NRA has effectively eliminated the law abiding adults from making that happen.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Unfortunately, the “decision” of gun owners to buy so many of them does nothing to protect them – it just makes it more likely that they’ll end up on the wrong end of a gun themselves.

            There are decisions, and there are dumb decisions. Feel free to make dumb buying decisions if what you’re buying won’t possibly be used to shoot up a movie theater. Otherwise, people are going to question those decisions.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            FreedMike,

            I had no idea that the only purpose of owning a firearm was to kill or wound another person or being. This is news to the vast majority of firearm owners, who have never used them for their only real purpose.

            But I shouldn’t be surprised that you then use the Trayvon Martin as a case against owning firearms. Where Zimmerman used his firearm in self defense against a man who was straddling him, raining blows on him MMA style, and banging his head against a concrete curb. There’s no evidence he stalked Martin, or that Martin was afraid for his own safety, just that he was annoyed that the crazy ass cracker had the gall to be suspicious of him.

            But I guess you think that Zimmerman should have just let Martin keep pounding on him and trust that he would stop short of seriously maiming or killing him.

            They had a big trial about this a couple of years ago; Zimmerman was found not guilty. He was found to have been justified in his use of deadly force in self defense, and that it was reasonable for him to fear for his life. The facts of the case are public, you can look them up. Actual facts don’t seem to interest you though. Because it’s all about those nasty guns.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @285exp

            No, I didn’t say that people buy guns to “kill or wound another person or being.”

            If you boil down the actual function of a gun, its’ main purpose is to shoot or kill another person or being. The purpose of that may be self-defense. But shooting people and things is what guns are made to do. That is their purpose.

            I suppose you could also argue that they’re made for target practice, but then again, the main reason why most folks do target practice is to improve their aim, so that if they feel the need to shoot something or someone, they won’t miss.

            I don’t understand why people get so defensive about this.

            As far as Zimmerman is concerned, you’re putting words in my mouth again. Of course he had a right to “defend” himself. But how did he get to that point? He played cop, when he shouldn’t have. Martin had the “right” to defend himself too – all he knew was that someone was stalking him at night in the trees. That’ll trigger the fight-or-flight mechanism in anyone.

            Martin’s best move was not to sneak around in backyards late at night. Zimmerman’s best move was to back off, report what he saw to the cops, and let them handle it. Instead, they both put themselves into a situation where a physical confrontation happened. It was two stupid men doing stupid things that put them into a situation where they had to “defend” themselves.

            Where do guns come into that? Simple. First, if Zimmerman hadn’t been carrying a gun around, then there’s probably no way he’d have followed Martin – he’d have probably called in what he saw and gone home. Second, once the physical confrontation happened, and Zimmerman found himself “threatened” on the losing end, using the gun became his only option.

            Without guns involved, Zimmerman wouldn’t have been stalking that kid around in the dark, and if the fistfight had ensued, they’d have both gone home with bloody noses and black eyes, after having learned a valuable lesson. For Martin, it’d have been “don’t go sneaking around peoples’ backyards at night”, and for Zimmerman, it’d have been “don’t play cops and robbers unless you really are a cop.”

            Most physical confrontations are senseless and stupid on retrospect, like the one in this story. But involve guns, and they become senseless, stupid…and deadly.

        • 0 avatar
          porschespeed

          Egads, This is a car site. When did it get populated with anti-gun pansies?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            My thoughts are along the same lines, but I think this topic has no place here in its current form.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            Thank god. A real man at last.

          • 0 avatar
            porschespeed

            Agreed. I’ll post a few facts, then quit tilting at windmills.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Since when did not thinking a gun is useful, or having less around would be a good thing, make you a “pansy”?

          • 0 avatar
            porschespeed

            If you choose not to own firearms,that’s your choice. Choosing to not have a tool to defend yourself or loved ones is also your choice.

            Leaving yourself reliant on others for your personal safety is like relying on others to change your oil, grow your food, work on your car, do your plumbing, do your electrical work, whatever. It’s fine as long as it’s convenient, but you damn well be able to do all of the above yourself should the need arise.

            On car forums, guys are usually, well, guys. Self-reliance is a defining part of manhood, or at least in the real world it is.

            I have several fire extinguishers too. I also hope to never need them, but should the need arise there they are. Difference being fire extinguishers aren’t fun to use recreationally.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            @FreedMike,

            You said the sole purpose of a firearm was to kill people or “beings”. That is simply not true, most people’s primary use is certainly not to hunt other people, and probably more people use them to punch holes in paper than hunt “beings” other than humans.

            Your characterization of the Martin case is also simply not true. Zimmerman didn’t stalk Martin, and Martin wasn’t defending himself. If you knew anything about the testimony and physical evidence in the case you’d know that. Your assumption that Zimmerman would simply have gone home if he hadn’t been armed is just that, an assumption. Martin had plenty of opportunity to go to the apartment he was staying in, but he chose not to, he chose to confront Zimmerman instead. The physical confrontation just didn’t “happen”, someone attack the other, and all the evidence shows Martin attacked Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman did not have his weapon drawn. Martin apparently thought he was going to teach Zimmerman a lesson, and it was going so well, until it didn’t. At least for him.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            porsche,
            Lost on you is that owning a firearm carries an inherent risk that does not exist otherwise. Therefore taking responsibility for your own safety can very well include opting out of gun ownership.

            The fire extinguisher analogy is ridiculous. Fire extinguishers will not burn your house down if used improperly.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @ 285:

            Yeah, and notice that the only “testimony” about what happened to Martin was from Zimmerman. Why? Because Martin was dead.

            Big issue.

            And I didn’t say Martin was defending himself per se – that’s too simplistic an answer. His BRAIN told him that he needed to defend himself, whether that was the case or not, because he was scared. Zimmerman following him around in the dead of night scared the crap out of the kid, as it would anyone. And when that happens, and we think we’re under threat, our brains fire the “flight or fight” response. Some stand and fight, others run. Martin fought – he jumped Zimmerman. A stupid response, brought on by him stupidly traipsing around peoples’ back yards in the middle of the night, and these facts explain why Zimmerman didn’t do time, but clearly Martin didn’t deserve to die. That happened because Zimmerman triggered Martin’s fight-or-flight instinct, subsequently got his butt kicked, and then acted on his own fight-or-flight instinct with his gun.

            That’s the explanation. And if Zimmerman had done the right thing, and stopped following Martin around, then the kid would been stopped by the cops and gone home after a good scolding, hopefully never to do that stupid stuff again. Being a foolish young man shouldn’t be a capital offense. If it were, I daresay neither you nor I would have ever made it past 19.

            But the point here isn’t to justify yourself shooting someone – it’s to avoid putting yourself into a situation where that’s the only option. That is where Zimmerman failed, and Martin paid the price for it.

        • 0 avatar
          Sigivald

          False, it turns out.

          (Hint: Look at the people critical of those studies, and *why*.

          When people have to rewrite “protect” or “defensive use” as “killing an intruder”, that’s the first sign they’re looking for a particular answer – and that answer is “guns BAD”.

          They are, of course, wrong.)

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Mr. Saturday night special
            Got a barrel that’s blue and cold
            Ain’t good for nothin’
            But put a man six feet in a hole

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            Mike,

            You tell me that the testimony in the Martin case, not all given by Zimmerman by the way, is suspect because he’s dead and couldn’t tell his side, but then you tell us all the things that went on in his mind that led him to attack Zimmerman in self-defense. How do you know what he was thinking? You’re the one making all the assumptions, not me.

      • 0 avatar
        Carzzi

        “Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force.”
        — Rusty Hudson L.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Although I am not a gun control advocate, I tend to agree.

      The only rational reason to respond by buying a gun if one’s life circumstances mirrored the victim’s, which they do not.

      • 0 avatar
        Sam Hall

        I think most are really responding to the Arthur Daileys of the world, who waste no opportunity to bang the gun ban drum. If you already have a gun, you have a good chance of holding onto it no matter what dumb laws are passed. If not, you will find it quite difficult to get one (legally).

        The people who buy and own guns illegally, of course, will continue to do so. They even still have shootings in Australia.

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          @SamHall: Thanks for disproving your own point.

          The oft-cited statistic in Australia is a simple one: There have been no mass killings — defined by experts there as a gunman killing five or more people besides himself — since the nation significantly tightened its gun control laws almost 20 years ago.

          Total intentional gun deaths fell by half in the decade after the 1996 restrictions were put in place, even as Australia’s population grew nearly 14 percent. The rate of gun suicides per 100,000 people dropped 65 percent from 1995 to 2006, and the rate of gun homicides fell 59 percent.

          Compare that to the statistics in the USA.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          @Sam:

          So…the logic behind buying a deadly weapon is to make sure you have it “once the gun grabbers come”?

          Of all the sensible reasons to own a gun, I think this one makes the least sense of all. All it does is flood the market with cheap weapons that have a better chance of ending up in the hands of criminals and lunatics.

          In fact, if I were a gun grabber, I’d cheer this illogical reaction, because it’ll eventually bring things to a point where the only option would be to grab them, lest the whole thing turn into a Baghdad-style s**t show.

    • 0 avatar
      SomeGuy

      Assuming you are European I would be curious to what you think the answer is, or are you going to just whine and not provide any useful commentary?

      • 0 avatar
        clivesl

        Don’t give in to fear.

        You are safer now than at any time in human history. You have zero rational reason to fear the circumstances that would lead you to need a gun.

        Fear is hype designed to sell you crap you don’t need and if you don’t buy into it you will be much happier.

        I live in Oakland, CA by the way and I love shooting guns.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Some people might truly need a gun. If you were in an unsafe neighborhood, or in a dangerous job, having one would make sense.

          But the interesting thing about gun owners is that their demographic is precisely the one that needs guns the least – affluent, suburban folks who live in safe neighborhoods that would be no less safe with or without as many guns around.

          But these are the people who buy so many of them, just like these same people buy lots of big screen TVs, IPhones, designer jeans, craft beers, and the zillions of other things that people with money tend to buy. And like any other type of consumer good, they want the latest and greatest. The guns that aren’t the latest and greatest end up sold, often to people who shouldn’t be sold to, because “private sales” are unregulated.

          So…criminals have an easier time getting their hands on guns, thus ramping up the fear of the folks with money, who then will want more and better guns of their own. It’s consumerism, just with a deadly weapon.

          • 0 avatar
            clivesl

            Bingo. Utter waste of money and brings unneeded deadly weapon into my house.

            I do have a well-weighted Mohawk war club that is going to shatter first the shoulder and then both knees of anyone dumb enough to come in my house.

          • 0 avatar
            porschespeed

            Because people who live in nice houses in nice neighborhoods never have anything bad happen? They are not targeted by the doers of bad deeds? Wow, it must be nice in that bubble.

            And living in the hills, is NOT the same as living downtown. Good luck with that club if they ever come….

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Porschespeed is moving so fast, he doesn’t have time for facts that don’t confirm his world view.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            No, porschespeed, I didn’t say nothing bad happens in good neighborhoods.

            What I said was that safe neighborhoods would probably be no more or less safe with more guns around.

            Why so defensive?

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            “Because people who live in nice houses in nice neighborhoods never have anything bad happen?”

            Sure they do. Sometimes someone breaks in and is stopped by the owner with a firearm. Wayne LaPierre then has an orgasm.

            Sometimes the home’s 5-year old gets shot because it wasn’t stored properly and they were playing with it. Sometimes someone gets sloppy at the target range and accidentally kills their own son (happened here just a month ago). Wayne LaPierre then pretends it doesn’t happen and lobbies congress to prevent the CDC from researching such incidents.

            Balance your risks, I suppose.

          • 0 avatar
            everybodyhatesscott

            Guns don’t really depreciate much. Sure, they’re cheaper used but my $850 handgun NIB is still about 600-700 used and probably will be for a very long time.

            And if most gun purchases are suburban middle class guys who want to own guys and don’t cause any crime why huge outcry to take them away? Nobody needs a porsche or a lexus or anything like that either. Nobody cares until the nannies come for their stuff.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            EverybodyHatesScott,
            There is no outcry to take away every American’s guns. It’s just a myth created by the NRA to increase gun sales.

            Given that we have nearly 300 million guns out there, it is a VERY effective myth.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            “And if most gun purchases are suburban middle class guys who want to own guys and don’t cause any crime why huge outcry to take them away? Nobody needs a porsche or a lexus or anything like that either. Nobody cares until the nannies come for their stuff.”

            Because of what happens when they tire of the old and busted gun and get a new one. It gets sold on the unregulated private market and is rather likely to end up shooting people on the street in East St. Louis. Meanwhile, the old Lexus ends up with a BHPH customer, who uses it to drive around town in the brief period before it gets repossessed.

          • 0 avatar
            George B

            FreedMike, I live in the exceptionally well armed and polite city that will soon be the home of Toyota’s headquarters. Like cars, people here own a mix of guns for specific purposes along with antique and collectable firearms. A rifle used for deer hunting needs to fire a large enough cartridge to kill a deer instantly so adrenaline from the wounded animal doesn’t ruin the taste of the venison. However, if you were to use the same weapon for home defense, the bullet likely goes through the criminal and a house or two behind him. Guns used to hunt feral hogs need to be able to shoot several shots without waiting to reload because those critters fight back. Some handguns, while very well suited to home defense, are simply too large and heavy to comfortably wear under clothing. Different tools for different jobs.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            George B:

            Compare the crime rate in YOUR Texas city to the crime rate in, say, the cities of Dallas or Houston. Same gun laws…different crime rates.

            Compare the crime rate where you live to, say, a comparable neighborhood of Los Angeles or New York, where gun laws are more restrictive than they are in Texas. You’ll likely find little difference.

            Affluent suburbs are polite because they’re affluent, not because they’re full of gun owners. In my neck of the woods, Boulder, Colorado is polite as hell too. Why? Not because everyone has a gun there (it’s a left-wing gun-hating nirvana, matter of fact), but because it’s probably the wealthiest large city in the state. Crime rates vary directly in correlation to socioeconomic factors. Rural areas are also inherently safer.

            I’m sorry, the “guns make us polite” argument makes little sense to me.

          • 0 avatar
            everybodyhatesscott

            Because of what happens when they tire of the old and busted gun and get a new one. It gets sold on the unregulated private market and is rather likely to end up shooting people on the street in East St. Louis.

            You really think middle class people are going on craigslist to sell crappy guns to lower class people in east st. louis? Middle class people don’t go to east st. louis They aren’t getting their guns from middle class guys who ‘wear out their guns’ (No one is wearing out a modern firearm). The east st. louis guys probably aren’t buying the $400+ guns that the middle class buy anyways. Guns aren’t like tv’s. They last a very long time.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @everyonehatesscott:

            Assuming:
            1) Gun manufacturers can’t sell directly to someone who can’t legally buy one;

            2) Gun dealers can’t sell directly to someone who can’t legally buy one;

            That leaves the only possible avenue for crooks to get guns is to make their own (unlikely), or from “private sales”. And there is no avenue to regulate these types of sales…none whatsoever.

            That’s how it happens. The fact that there are so many millions of guns just makes the problem more widespread.

            Would you agree that all private sales should also be regulated? I sure would.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Are suburban gun fetishists selling their no-longer-latest-and-greatest (but working fine) guns directly to hood criminals? No.

            They are, most likely, mainly selling them to less affluent gun enthusiasts. Then those people sell them via Craigslist, or have them “borrowed” by relatives, or pawn them when financially desperate. Either way, the large number of guns being produced and sold to wealthy gun enthusiasts eventually turn into the large number of illegal guns on the streets. Produce fewer new guns, and the economics slowly change and used guns slowly get harder to acquire.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            @ dal20402

            “It gets sold on the unregulated private market and is rather likely to end up shooting people on the street in East St. Louis. ”

            no blanket statements. In Michigan all (legal) handgun transfers are registered, whether buying from an FFL dealer or a private individual.

        • 0 avatar
          clivesl

          Porshespeed,

          Dude I live in Oakland for love of pete. My daughter waves at “crazy homeless guy” on her way to school.

          If they come into my darkened home, where my dogs have given me plenty of warning, I can get in position to take out an intruder with my club just as fast as I could with my gun.

          And I guarantee the club won’t miss and go through my kids door.

          You want to live your life in fear go right ahead, I don’t really have time for it.

          • 0 avatar
            porschespeed

            clivesl, I got a $50 that says you live in the hills, not the city. I know Oakland. If you lived downtown, you’d know what actual crime was.

            Like I said, good luck with your club. I hope you never have to learn how ‘effective’ that will be.

            I don’t live in fear, I have very little, armed or not. Statistics and all that. But I also know that I have far better odds of walking away when I am. Statistics…

            30 miles,

            Tragic when an irresponsible gun owner lets their kid hurt themselves. Tragic, but that means we need to return to training kids about firearms, not suspend kids for chewing poptarts into the shape of a gun.

            Regardless, it’s an enumerated right. Don’t like the 2A, change the Constitution. The FFs didn’t foresee the internet, yet the 1A remains unaffected.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            Okay, I’ll weigh in on this completely non-automotive related anything Bark’s Bites.

            If anyone own/operates a business in a place like Highland Park, Pontiac, Inkster, East St. Louis, some really bad parts of Miami, some really bad parts of Chicago, etc., especially if they deal in cash transactions (even taking money from place of business to vehicle to get to bank), and they don’t pack a 9mm to .357 Magnum, while having a 12 gauge behind the counter, and encouraging responsible employees to carry (with permits & training), they’re plumb crazy & begging to die defenseless for as little as $20.

            Welcome to the jungle. This is a way of life and natural order of things in the modern American dystopian parts. Ivy League Intellectuals Philosopher Kings, please feel free to run those inner city businesses in any manner you see fit.

            “Nature, red in tooth & claw.”

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            And again Deadweight proves he’s from Detroit. Most of the most dangerous places in America aren’t as dystopian as the average block in Southeast Michigan.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          Thank you, clivesl, for posting some sanity.

          There’s a consistent pattern: law-abiding people who actually live in the middle of violent cities tend not to want guns around and not to own them, while equally law-abiding people who live in totally crime-free suburbs and only take yearly trips to the big city think they need to be packing to survive.

          I lived in large cities for most of my adult life, some relatively safe (Seattle and Boston), some less so (DC and frequent visits to Baltimore). I’ve never been threatened with a gun (or any other way), partly because I’m lucky but also partly because I exercise basic common sense about what places and situations may be dangerous and don’t walk around in the street drunk at 3 a.m. If some fool does threaten me with a gun, I know that the statistically safest thing to do is to run like hell in an unpredictable direction; most handguns are not remotely accurate, especially as operated by a typical street criminal, at more than very close range. Owning a gun would just make my household that much more dangerous for, in my opinion, no significant personal protection benefit.

          • 0 avatar
            clivesl

            It is a personal choice, I love guns and I go and shoot them whenever I can, but I don’t need one to protect myself in a first world city. To believe that you do is not logical to me.

            And BTW Porsche, nobody lives downtown except for tech kids escaping the high rents in the city. It’s mostly business and an exploding art scene.

            You may have been thinking of East Oakland, but I go there every day and have yet to see gun play in the streets.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            “I lived in large cities for most of my adult life, some relatively safe (Seattle and Boston), some less so (DC and frequent visits to Baltimore). I’ve never been threatened with a gun (or any other way), partly because I’m lucky but also partly because I exercise basic common sense about what places and situations may be dangerous and don’t walk around in the street drunk at 3 a.m. If some fool does threaten me with a gun, I know that the statistically safest thing to do is to run like hell in an unpredictable direction; most handguns are not remotely accurate, especially as operated by a typical street criminal, at more than very close range. Owning a gun would just make my household that much more dangerous for, in my opinion, no significant personal protection benefit.”

            No offense intended, but you’re in a bubble mentality with a bubble outlook, because you don’t understand that in nearly every major U.S. city, even in the “not worst” parts, there are millions of small businesses such as convenience stores, etc., whereby the conduit of transactions is cash, and that’s why those places get robbed daytime and nighttime, and that the owner has to have some form of means to protect his or her life (and those of employees) when transporting the cash derived from goods sold to his/her vehicle (to get to the bank), or when in the store, when the inevitable criminal looking to score some quick cash on a smash and grab (with a knife or gun) robbery comes knocking.

            You’re speaking of walking around in downtown areas at night, as a consumer of restaurant and pub fare, while these small business owners have a target on their back by every meth and heroin junkie and criminal, and who will kill a human being they know to carry cash in store on their person at the drop of a hat (for denominations as small as a couple hundred measly bucks or less).

            And Washington State is not immune; I’ve been to Kent (hotel rooms were scarce, and I needed to be close to SEATAC), and it was not pretty when I went on a brief tour of the surrounding area.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            DeadWeight, no offense intended to you, but you don’t know my history very well.

            It goes far beyond “walking around downtown areas at night, as a consumer of restaurant and pub fare.” I’ve spent my share of time in the worst parts of town (including, as it happens, the scarier parts of Kent) and talked to plenty of the small business owners you describe. Some take the approach you advocate, that every junkie out there is going to steal their money and they need to be packing and conduct business from behind a bulletproof pane. Others rely on the community itself to ensure their security. One market owner I know, located in an area that was VERY rough for decades but is now mostly gentrified, stood right out in the open and had no weapons. He knew the kids who loitered around his store and bought pop and chips, whom you or I would look at and see drug dealers, would have his back if anyone tried to mess with him or his money.

            You have an apocalyptic view of life. In that, you’re not always wrong but you’re not always right either.

    • 0 avatar
      06V66speed

      Gee, VoGo, maybe because this country was built on guns. Perhaps because The Second Amendment says we have the right to do so.

      I mean, gol-ly. I understand how some anti-gun folks don’t understand the importance of guns to us ‘Muricans, but to go so far as to imply that we may have some sort of problem with our fascination of guns… smdh.

      There are plenty of other countries you can live in. You know, countries where firearms aren’t part of said country’s heritage. As opposed to doing us all some sort of “Favor” and telling us of the dangers (!!!) of gun ownership. Lol

      Just sayin’.

      And I’ll tell you what. Heaven forbid you find yourself in a life threatening situation while being unarmed. If you ever find yourself a victim, you just might be singing a different tune…

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        How was America “built on guns”? You mean the revolution which was comparable to the Vietnamese War in that England was divided in its approach, with many politicians/military leaders and most of the population were against the war and therefore depended significantly on the use of ‘mercenaries’. And the fact that key battles won by the ‘revolutionaries’ were often won due to the presence and use of French troops and French warships?

        Other than that the story of how America was built is largely the story of settlers moving into territories, setting up laws, restricting gun possession and use and gaining ‘statehood’.

        In fact few other nations were more dependent on peaceful co-existence, government aid and assistance and what could generally be regarded as ‘socialist’ policies to develop and progress.

        Free land, free schooling, public transportation, public works, working infrastructure and a working legal system were are all key to America’s ascendancy.

        It is only when those ideals are forgotten and unregulated ‘capitalism’ disguised as ‘individualism’ is allowed to remove legislation/regulations, (The Gilded Age, the Great Depression and the neo-Con engineered recessions) that America and the majority of its citizens suffer economic hardships

  • avatar
    3XC

    My aunt’s first husband played for the Buffalo Bills in the 1970s, including on the 1973 team best known for O.J. Simpson’s 2000 rushing yard season. Her ex-husband fraternized with his teammates, as is to be expected, and they hung out with O.J. in social situations many times. She will tell anyone, as she has told me, about how O.J. is a prince of a man. What a nice guy. The sort of guy you would be happy to see your friend or sister dating.

  • avatar
    SomeGuy

    Good article. “Judged by twelve rather than carried by six” is a nice way to sum it up and well written IMO.

    I wonder about picking up a conceal license, but then I just think about all the potential trouble that comes with packing a firearm in your car, especially if you get pulled over by the police.

    I work downtown and in an office building that does not allow firearms, so I can’t even have the “protection” half of the time I’d need it, then you have the issue of carrying across state lines, entering buildings that don’t allow it, etc.

    • 0 avatar
      ckb

      After last weeks Baruth essay on Obamacare my first thought was when will TTAC bring up guns?

      A quick look at this particular anecdote as “evidence” for needing a CC: The victim was shot in the back after a traffic accident. Maybe it was road rage, maybe it was a vendetta. In any case the victim was shot in the back. Assuming you don’t have any known vendettas against you, the only way to protect yourself in this scenario is to shoot anyone who might be coming at you as fast as you can. Kinda like the trend in china where you need to make sure you killed whoever you were in an accident with to avoid more jailtime. Is a race to shoot the other person in every NOLA fenderbender really an improvement?

      Looking forward to next week’s “car” article on abortion.

    • 0 avatar
      hybridkiller

      “I wonder about picking up a conceal license, but then I just think about all the potential trouble that comes with packing a firearm in your car, especially if you get pulled over by the police.”

      If you get pulled over, you hand the cop your DL AND your CCW (some states actually require doing this). This instantly tells him 2 things about you: one, that you are not a felon and two, that you are not a threat to him (if you were a threat you wouldn’t give him any warning). And since the vast majority of cops have pro-gun attitudes as citizens themselves it usually buys you some cred with him (as weird as that sounds).

      There are compliance advantages as well (in my case). I travel a lot between FL and GA. Both allow possession in your personal vehicle sans a CCW license, however FL requires the weapon be “secured” and out of sight – GA law wants it in open, plain view. Total opposite requirements, but a non-issue with a CCW.

      You obviously need to know which states have reciprocity with your home state and know the relevant laws for the state you are traveling in.

    • 0 avatar
      Carzzi

      Concealed carry means concealed carry. If you were to divulge this, to anyone, figure of authority or not, is it concealed carry anymore?

      • 0 avatar
        hybridkiller

        I agree that normally it isn’t smart to advertise CCW, but a direct interaction with a LEO is a clear exception, and in 15 states you are required by law to inform a LEO you are carrying if you are approached by them (commonly referred to as “must notify” states). In the majority of the rest you are required to inform if asked.

        It is NEVER smart to play coy with LE, and as long as you are in compliance with local laws, I don’t see any problem – IME you are way better off being relaxed and open/honest with them.

        BTW, if I tell you I’m carrying and you can’t see the weapon, it is still legally concealed.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    Bark’s mention of his personal dealings with Smith amount to a character reference, which is admissable and pertinent.

    Until the Supreme Court of the USA reverses the Heller decision of 2008 and reverts back to at least the Miller decision (1939) or at best the Cruikshank decision (1876), our American cousins are going to suffer from unacceptable rates of gun violence. Totally unlike those in any other first world nation.

    As per a posting by the BBC a credible and objective agency, in 2015 the USA experienced: 372 ‘mass’ shootings, 64 shootings at schools and 13,286 killed by firearms.

    Gun deaths in the period 1968 to 2011 outnumber all deaths experienced by all US armed forces in all the wars that they have fought.

    The same article states that the US government spends $1 trillion per year of taxpayers money on ‘the war against terrorism. However since 2001 the number of Americans killed by acts of terrorism (including those in 9/11) averages 517 per year while firearms deaths equal 11,385 per year.

    Just like its ‘war against drugs’ the US government has misled its population on what the true threats are to their safety.

    • 0 avatar
      Detroit-Iron

      Miller wasn’t a decision.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff Weimer

      You assertion is contraindicated by evidence. As firearms ownership rates have risen, gun violence has gone down, and that started *before* Heller. Firearms ownership is a civil right in this country, and Heller was correctly (if unfortunately narrowly) decided. I’m sorry you feel differently, and your opinion is noted, but this is for your American cousins to decide, like or unlike any other first-world nation.

      • 0 avatar
        mike978

        I ask this out of all seriousness, you say personal gun ownership is a civil right. What I don`t hear much is that the second amendment mentions a militia.

        “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

        • 0 avatar
          Detroit-Iron

          There is a lot of literature parsing the language if you are interested. Just try to look at multiple sources.

          • 0 avatar
            mike978

            Thanks – I will do.

          • 0 avatar
            porschespeed

            Let me help those who are too lazy to look it up…

            “Well regulated” means “well trained”. That training is something that is something anyone can do.

            “Militia”. Any able-bodied male. The founders didn’t like standing armies. At all.

            The 2A is meant as a check on government power. It’s not about hunting.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            For those too lazy to look him up, “Porschespeed” = “pro gun pansy” who swallows whole whatever the gun lobby feeds him in the desperate hope it will turn him into an actual man.

          • 0 avatar
            porschespeed

            For those too lazy to look him up “VoGo” is a sad and pathethic statist punk who has no idea what the FFs founded this country on, or why….

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            PansySpeed, PansySpeed, PansySpeed!

            Have you ever considered that if your points were valid, you wouldn’t need to be so insulting? Then, perhaps, people might respect what you write, and not call you out for being a pansy all time.

            And just so that you can upgrade your insulting capability (which would be quite easy), statists are people who favor government control of economic levers, not the arms of bears.

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          This is where most grammar books easily acknowledge that the only actual important part of the sentence is the last. The beginning is the explanation for why the right exists. It’s been a political tool for those who wish to limit the rights of gun ownership dramatically but it really doesn’t mean anything.

          To make it blunt: Because we want a well-regulated militia we’re NOT going to infringe on the rights to keep and bear arms. So whatever the militia is doing the right is wholly independent of it.

          In that same breath, I think there is a legal right to regulate just not a right to remove ownership. The problem is poverty more than anything else. The poor have a disproportionate chance to be victims and criminals in this action. So ultimately it is more about abject poverty than random emotional killings.

          • 0 avatar
            Kenmore

            I thought those militias stemmed from the ever-ready slave patrols needed in pre-Revolutionary VA and SC (especially after Haiti) whose politicians dominated the fledgling US government for 50 years.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I’ve previously dealt with Porschespeed’s failed attempts to explain these things. Scroll down through the comments:

            https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/12/american-irony-this-facebook-page-will-destroy-your-faith-in-humanity/

            He obviously didn’t learn anything since then. Some folks are slower than others (which I realize is ironic on a car website.)

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        @JeffWeimer,
        Unfortunately the statistics tell another story and the amount of firearms available both legally and illegally n the USA is having a negative impact on Canada. Guns illegally smuggled into Canada from the USA are being used to commit crimes here.

        As for gun violence in the USA
        1) mass shootings are now averaging 1 per week. The number of mass shootings is on the rise and so are the number of deaths per shooting.

        http://www.thoughtspot.com/blog/america%E2%80%99s-mass-shootings-6-charts

        2. To date in 2016, 144 children under the age of age 11 killed by firearms so far this year. http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

        3. The U.S. has higher rates of homicides from guns than Pakistan. At 4.5 deaths per 100,000 people, the U.S. rates aren’t much lower than gun homicide rates in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (5.2 deaths per 100,000 people). Annually, the U.S. has about two fewer gun homicide deaths per 100,000 people than Iraq, which has 6.5 deaths per 100,000.
        http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2015/10/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-u-s-rest-world/

        You are correct though that it is a problem that Americans need to solve, on there own. However as someone else said, ‘if Sandyhook could not convince Americans that the route that they have taken is wrong and the route that other nations such as Australia and Scotland has taken is correct, then no amount of logic or reason will ever convince them of the error of their ways’.

        • 0 avatar
          George B

          Homicide including homicide involving guns isn’t evenly distributed across either the US population or the population of the world. Some people are simply more dangerous than others. Murderers tend to be young and male with unusually poor impulse control. Most people don’t shoot other people just like they don’t run over other people using their car, bludgeon people to death using makeshift clubs, or stab people using sharp kitchen knives.

    • 0 avatar
      319583076

      If I’m not mistaken, the majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides meaning that you’re more likely to take your own life with a gun than be a shooting victim.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        This is true. IIRC, studies show that suicides are far more successful with firearms (obviously), but that without firearms other methods will not be used in lieu of them. Essentially, most of these people would be likely to be alive now if firearms weren’t available to them.

        Removing suicides, you still have a high number of gun related deaths, much higher per capita than other first world nations with low per capita gun ownership. And that difference is not made up for in other forms of non-gun related violence.

        • 0 avatar
          VCplayer

          “but that without firearms other methods will not be used in lieu of them. Essentially, most of these people would be likely to be alive now if firearms weren’t available to them.”

          Ehhhh, I’m not sure that this is something that can be credibly studied. It might be true, but getting accurate answers from a hypothetical question like this is tricky enough when something as emotionally complex as suicide isn’t involved.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            I agree it is very tricky, but not that it cannot be credibly studied. I’m not an epidemiologist myself, I’m just summarizing (and perhaps poorly) what I’ve heard from them and assume that their professional background is more credible than my opinions on the matter.

          • 0 avatar
            the_newt

            I agree with 30-miles, we are much better at killing ourselves than others. Casual research makes it appear to me suicide attempts are, like the violent crimes mentioned above, a moment of poor impulse control. The overwhelming desire to kill, yourself or someone else, is a mental health issue. Firearms make those impulses easier to act on.

            It’s been attempted to be studied but sure would be nice if the CDC could actually study gun violence of any stripe without fear of being defunded via lobbyist pressuring congress.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC478945/

            http://www.speakingofsuicide.com/2013/07/05/suicide-attempt-survivors/

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/217131

          • 0 avatar
            VCplayer

            I agree whole-heartedly that the gun lobby’s insistence on not studying the situation at all is a big problem, but I really wasn’t criticizing the theory so much as the science that would support it. I don’t think you can prove (ethically, anyway) that banning guns would drastically decrease the suicide rate. The only real studying you can do is to question survivors or those who have strongly contemplated suicide, and while I’m sure those results are interesting, they are probably not strongly indicative of the hypothesis.

            Regarding the content though: firearms are certainly an easy method of suicide, but a lack of firearms in other first world countries has not necessarily led to lower suicide rates. Going by Wikipedia (I’m too lazy to do more for a blog comment), both Japan and South Korea have higher rates of suicide than the US, in spite of the fact that firearms are much less common for civilians to own. Australia, which might be more culturally similar to the US, has only a slightly lower rate in spite of firearms being tightly controlled. In all three of these countries, hanging and poisoning are far more common than in the US as methods of suicide.

            I’m not saying that it isn’t possible that if there weren’t guns that a suicide might be prevented—and gun owners need to consider that—but I don’t think existing evidence really supports it, and a glance at what goes on in countries with more restrictive gun laws suggests that gun control is probably not going to make any sort of real progress in the suicide rate.

            There are some good arguments to be made about guns, but I’m not sure that suicide is a very compelling one.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            VCplayer – many survivors of suicide say that they changed their mind part way through the attempt. This has been studied with survivors who have attempted to jump to their death. You pull a trigger and you don’t have time to reconsider.

          • 0 avatar
            VCplayer

            @Lou_BC

            I have no doubt that making the decision to commit suicide more difficult helps with preventing it, but it’s impossible to know if such people would have sought out other initial means of suicide if firearms were not an option. I don’t think it’s a bad conjecture, but suicides in other first world countries where firearms are not readily available suggests that there are far more important factors in suicide than access to guns.

            It’s possible that if guns suddenly disappeared tomorrow from the US that the suicide rate would dip, but this is completely unprovable, at least ethically. The experiment you would have to do to show that is to take suicidal people and give them access to various modes of suicide and see how often they would go through with it. Obviously that would be a horrible thing to do. Anything short of that though only makes suggestion about the ties between guns and suicide, and as I mentioned, there is also some suggestion that it doesn’t make a difference—or at least not much of one.

            Again, it’s possible it would have a positive effect, but that isn’t really something that science can show with any real certainty.

        • 0 avatar
          319583076

          “Removing suicides, you still have a high number of gun related deaths, much higher per capita than other first world nations with low per capita gun ownership. And that difference is not made up for in other forms of non-gun related violence.”

          I was not aware of this, thanks for the info.

    • 0 avatar
      Dirty Dingus McGee

      We get it; you don’t like guns. They’re scary and make loud noises. Simple solution, don’t be in a place where there are guns, don’t put yourself into a place where there is a possibility that someone WITH a gun will accost you, if you must leave the perceived security of your home just carry a whistle and a stick. I’m certain that the hood rat that is considering carjacking/robbing/raping will be sufficiently frightened and run away lickety split. If i see someone trying to commit a crime against you with a firearm, I will be sure to holler to them that you don’t like guns, don’t have one and that they should leave you alone.

      As for me. I’ll keep my pump shotgun (well hidden but easily accessible) in my home, and one of my 3 pistols on my person at all time I’m allowed by law. A weapon has saved my ass twice from being a crime victim, and while I hope there isn’t a third time, I’ll be prepared if there is.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        Dingus: So by your reasoning law abiding citizens should never go to or out in areas where concealed carry is allowed. So whose rights do you mind infringing?

  • avatar
    smartascii

    It’s precisely this tendency to hear a story (a frightening, bewildering, tragic and stupid one, to be sure) and extrapolate from it a risk to ourselves that causes a lot of needless and sometimes accidental gun deaths. About 1,500 people are killed *or injured* in road rage incidents each year, and those are 1,500 real people, but your chance of being one of them is infinitesimally small. And unless you have a long background in military or law enforcement, it is *very* unlikely that you have the experience or training to effectively use a firearm in a fast-moving, high-stress situation without either escalating to your detriment or injuring or killing someone innocent. Guns are awesome and fun for a lot of people, it’s possible to successfully use one for self defense, and outlawing them is a bad, politically loaded step that solves few if any problems. But they are unlike anything else you use on a daily basis, and this cavalier notion that arming yourself will solve problems like this is not grounded in reality.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff Weimer

      What *is* grounded in reality is the notion that it’s better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

      • 0 avatar
        smartascii

        Except that a statistically significant amount of the time, people who have it “just in case” wind up with those weapons killing them or someone they love, either by accident or because the other party in the confrontation takes the weapon and uses it against them. Everyone wants the gun “issue” to be simple, and it’s not. They’re fun, useful, and sometimes life-saving in the right hands. It’s the rest of the time that’s the problem.

    • 0 avatar
      Detroit-Iron

      The notion that law enforcement people have the “experience or training to use a firearm in a fast-moving, high-stress situation without either escalating to your detriment or injuring or killing someone innocent” is laughable.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        No, it isn’t. Yes, cops make mistakes, but with over a million of them on the job at any given time, and constantly in dangerous situations, I’d say the handful of bad-apple incidents and mistakes is pretty darn small.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          FreedMike,
          Unfortunately, there is alot more than a handful of evidence that there is opportunity to better train police officers to de-escalate potentially violent incidents.

          What happened to the killer’s father is probably a good example, not that it in any way excuses his actions.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I agree, there is ample opportunity to better train cops, but with millions of cops routinely going into life-and-death situations, you’d expect them to be spilling the streets with blood, but that’s not the case.

          • 0 avatar
            Detroit-Iron

            @Freedmike,

            No disrespect to the Law Enforcement community, but a) their job is not even remotely “constantly dangerous” and b) the simple matter of municipal and state budgets preclude the kind of training that delusional people seem to think the police get. The vast majority of LEOs “qualify” once a year shooting 50 or so rounds at paper in the basement of the police station. Maybe they get to spend some time with the shoot/no shoot video game set up. No moving targets, no moving while shooting, no nothing. They are not Delta Force, 90% of them aren’t even SWAT and the SWAT guys negligently kill people (and burn babies) every year.

      • 0 avatar
        smartascii

        Fair enough. Do you think they get more firearms training than is otherwise required to purchase a handgun?

  • avatar

    #1 Humans are animals. Predatory animals.

    #2 Murder and other forms of premature death are called: “limiting factors”.

    #3 Humans are constantly involved in COMPETITION for space, food, air, water and mates. In this case “space on the road” and “insurance premiums”. Add to that the pressure of seeing your beloved car damaged and you’ve got a keg ready to explode.

    #4 The human who competes with another human and survives, increases the possibility of living long enough to have offspring of his own.

    #5 Eventually Natural Selection will breed a species of humans completely impervious to tasers.

  • avatar
    dwford

    How did a fender bender turn into murder? Because the empathy and inclusion indoctrination at our schools is being offset by the self righteous victim indoctrination. So we have millions uncompromising, self centered, hair trigger tempered individuals running around that get loud at the slightest provocation.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      And *that* is my issue with private gun ownership much of the time.

      Owning a firearm for protection is, in itself, innocuous. But then I deal with and know so many people who say things like, “If I go to the store some fool gets loud with me, he’ll be staring into the barrel of my SIG Sauer.” Or, “I’m gonna go in this bar, but I’ve got something for Ray-Ray if he wants trouble…”

      It’s one thing to defend yourself. It’s another to pull your weapon out when the situation doesn’t warrant it, or to walk into a situation where you think you’ll need a gun, when you could reasonably avoid that situation.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        It’s important to some to have that “tough guy don’t f-ck with me” thing, I suppose?

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        +100, Kyree.

        And I think there’s no better example of this kind of stupidity than George Zimmerman. Would he have stalked Trayvon Martin around his neighborhood if he didn’t have a gun? Not in a million years – he’d have given the cops the kid’s location, and that’d have been that. The cops would have figured Martin was a threat to no one, and he’d have gone home.

        Even if the two would have ended up in a fistfight, more than likely both of them would have gone home with black eyes, broken noses, perhaps a missing tooth, and a nothing more. Instead, the whole “I felt threatened” thing kicked in, and one young man was dead, and another’s life ruined.

        Nonsense…utter nonsense.

        When I was a kid, this kind of p*ssing contest got settled with fists. Both guys ended up with black eyes and a hard learned lesson about how stupid this kind of thing really is.

        Introduce a gun, and someone’s going to get dead.

        Unfortunately, guns tend to give some men far more testosterone than they need.

        • 0 avatar
          Kyree S. Williams

          My sentiments exactly. I’m just disturbed that so many trigger-happy idiots are allowed to have guns in the first place. Taking someone else’s life to preserve your own may be a necessary course of action, but it should never be done lightly.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        And another thing for innocent people to find themselves unable to preserve their lives and the lives of their loved ones due to the predatory actions of a criminal who respects no laws.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Reminds me of a neighbor of mine, who once proclaimed that she felt unsafe walking from her car to the front door of Nordstrom’s at the local mall. I am not making this up.

          It’s this kind of attitude that leads to an incredibly, uncontrollably high (and thus, cheap) supply of unregulated weapons. If people stopped buying so many of these, then your chances of encountering an armed criminal would be exponentially lower. Things like background checks would become far more effective. Prices for the smaller pool of illegally-obtainable guns would increase, and the police could go after the wrongdoers far more easily and effectively.

          It’s the “I have to be armed to protect myself” idea – largely a product of modern-day Mad Men – that creates this vast, uncontrollable black market for guns, and thus the “need to be armed.” Is this harmful when the modern-day Don Drapers are selling big screen TVs – after all, you can’t use your 65″ 4K TV to shoot up a school. But guns are a different matter.

          We could end a lot of the gun violence by simply buying less of the things. Notice that has nothing to with the Constitution.

          • 0 avatar
            dwford

            So you think people who take the time to get fingerprinted, background checked, and pay all the fees it takes to buy a gun are then flipping them to criminals, so that the first time the gun is used to police come knocking on their door? That’s not what happens at all

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I didn’t say that, dwford. I’m sure that most people who buy guns have no intention of selling them to criminals. But there’s no law requiring “private” transactions to be included in background checks. Here in Colorado, I could sell a handgun on Craigslist and all I would have to ask to the buyer is “is your check any good.”

            Many guns that end up in illegal circulation criminals’ hands do so this way. And once they’re in illegal circulation, there’s practically nothing the cops can do about it – there’s so many of them that they can’t deal with anything but a small fraction of them.

            People could deal with this issue most effectively by not buying so many guns. The less that are out there, the less that end up in the hands of the wrong people – it’ll be more difficult and more expensive for the crooks and freaks to buy them. That would help this problem without changing a single law, or “endangering” anyone’s rights.

          • 0 avatar
            countymountie

            You’re not allowed to sell guns on Craigslist. If you sell a gun in Colorado, you are required by law to conduct a background check on the buyer even for private party transactions.

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        I own a gun, I have a concealed carry permit. Every time it has crossed my mind to be a fool and want to draw it I don’t. The problem is the machismo that permeates our culture as a whole. This idea that masculinity is built upon anger, violence, and social dominance. You can’t tell people the only way to be a man or be strong is to be a violent sociopath and then not expect them to do stupid things like this.

        It’s especially evident in New Orleans where I live currently. Mix poverty, a heavy dose of racism, and an emasculation of an entire people by the first two and you’ve got a powder keg ready to explode at a moment’s notice.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      Overall, it’s just disturbing.

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    From what have read about this whole situation in NOL. The incident sounds less like a traffic accident gone wrong and a lot more like a targeted assassination. The guy was still in his car, how did the alleged perpetrator have time to feel ‘scared for his safety’?

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      I agree, it sounds entirely intentional and planned.

      • 0 avatar
        shoshone

        Daily Beast seems to say it was all coincidental. So we will see.

        http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/10/new-orleans-saints-star-will-smith-killed-by-man-who-idolized-him.html

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      +1

    • 0 avatar
      mike978

      I haven`t read much about this. The question would be why did the perpetrator just wait to be arrested?

      Also a G63 AMG – bad taste in vehicles

      • 0 avatar
        VCplayer

        It’s not unheard of for criminals to turn themselves in after committing a crime. A combination of guilt and a feeling of being inevitably discovered seems to drive them towards doing that.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Or maybe in the shooter’s mind, he was acting in self defense.

          • 0 avatar
            VCplayer

            I suppose that’s possible, but there’s zero information available about this incident that would support that explanation. Given that Smith was killed in his car seat, self defense is going to be very difficult to be conceivable in a jury’s mind.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            True, but in the moment, when someone the size of Smith is going off on you, is it possible to feel threatened? I’d say it is. In the heat of the moment, people don’t always act rationally.

            But as you say, the facts aren’t all in yet.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Somehow I doubt that. My bet is that the guy who shot Smith got pissed over having his car damaged, went to give him a piece of his mind about it, got yelled at instead, and then it escalated into this stupid shooting.

      Somehow I doubt that the shooter would have gotten up in the face of a physical specimen like Smith if he hadn’t been armed. Guns give some men far too much artificial testosterone.

    • 0 avatar
      SP

      Yes, the facts sound a little too coincidental for this to be a random incident. (Though strange things DO happen!)

      I think a more likely title for the piece would be, “How Did Murder Turn Into a Fender Bender in New Orleans?

      Really, this piece touches on a few good points, but as police really haven’t released any information about what the suspect is saying, it’s too soon for anyone to draw much of a conclusion.

      My personal thought is that, even if you put aside the coincidence of the dinner with the police officer, it’s suspicious that the person who initiated the rear-end crash got out of his car and went to confront the person he hit. A more likely reaction, if it was truly an accident, would be to back up and flee. Or flee on foot. Why go up and argue with the person you hit and give them a chance to identify you?

      (I have been hit in rear-end crashes twice. In both cases, the drivers fled. One by car, one on foot! I suspect the first had no insurance, and the second was high.)

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Seems to me guns were the last thing either of these men needed.

    • 0 avatar
      This Is Dawg

      Was Bark’s knee-jerk writing of this article fast? No doubt. Just two days later, however, we have glimpses of evidence that not only did Smith himself have a gun, making Bark’s response seem less like the best chance he had, but ALSO testimony that points toward Smith’s gun-inspired confidence as being the EXACT reason he was shot at all.

      To recap: with a lack of details about the order of events, Bark proposed precisely the reaction that resulted in Smith’s death.

      http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2016/04/will_smith_death_loaded_handgu.html

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2016/04/13/cardell-hayes-will-smith/82973778/

  • avatar
    Pch101

    This really has nothing to do with cars or the truth about them.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Unfortunately, getting rear-ended is part of the truth about cars. It’s a good reminder of what to do and what not to do when that happens.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        This is a bunch of speculation that was intended to deliver a punchline about guns.

        Aside from the fact that people should do less speculating and more investigating (which in this case means waiting for the guys and gals who are paid to investigate it to do their jobs), this is ultimately an editorial about a different topic.

        You can bet that if this same piece led to an anti-gun conclusion that the right-wingers would be quick to pounce on it due to it being off-topic to this site. The difference there is that in that case, I would agree with them.

        If the story itself interests you, then I would suggest going to the local media sources because they’ll have reporters on the ground who are familiar with the area. In this case, that would include The Advocate and the Times-Picayune. (Incidentally, the cops are inclined to believe that they didn’t know each other, while the shooter is alleging that he was responding to an earlier hit-and-run perpetrated by Smith’s side.)

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          The political aspect doesn’t bother me that much, PCH. I’d rather talk politics here, where most of the other posters have functional brains, than other places.

    • 0 avatar
      319583076

      TTAC is the new Riverside Green.

    • 0 avatar
      Dingleberrypiez_Returns

      This is TTAC 4.0, brought to you by the puppet master troll Baruth bros.

      Seriously though, it’s a sad time at TTAC when every other article needs to be politicized for clicks and comments. Both Bark and Jack are interesting enough on their own not to have to resort to these tactics.

      • 0 avatar
        Jack Baruth

        Give me a break.

        I was terminated as EIC nearly two years ago.

        The site is run by Colum Wood, who delegates some of his authority to Mark Stevenson.

        Bark and I don’t have any say in what goes on here.

    • 0 avatar
      SomeGuy

      You guys must be awesome at parties. Why don’t you just ask the site for a refund of all the money you have put into it?

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      I actually don’t mind the political / socioeconomic pieces. They are enlightening, and it’s always interesting to see someone else’s point of view. Yes, I usually disagree with a lot of the right-wing rhetoric, but if I were insulated from everyone with whom I disagree, I would be a very boring person.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        It’s not the opinion per se, but the fact that it has little or nothing to do with this website’s subject matter. You’ll notice that I generally don’t make this sort of comment in response to the many political blog posts that are posted here.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          I agree, the only automotive tie seems to be the fact Mr. Smith was effectively assassinated after being rear ended on a road (I also recall hearing in the local news his wife was shot in the legs but should recover). I don’t even know what to say to something like this. Maybe instead of the death penalty we should institute a castration penalty because as a man, I feel it may be worse than death.

          I enjoyed my time in NOLA and would return, but I was cognizant of the reality of being in a any larger US city.

      • 0 avatar
        Dingleberrypiez_Returns

        I too enjoy the occasional political/socioeconomic piece, particularly when it’s well articulated and entertaining. But the whole gun thing was tacked on here pretty unnecessarily, and obviously just to stir up contention in the comments. Which seems to be standard operating procedure these days.

  • avatar
    clivesl

    “he was shot multiple times by Hayes in the back and torso”

    Apparently, if you had a gun in this situation you would have been dead, but with a gun.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      If both of these men had guns, more people would have been shot. That’s the only difference.

      • 0 avatar
        clivesl

        I didn’t want to go overboard with it, but yeah, I could see you accidentally popping your wife or kid in this situation if you had a chance to get to your weapon.

        If you are getting shot in the back, I don’t see where having a gun with you really does much good.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Only in the movies does it help.

          Seriously, here in Denver after the theater shooting we had scores of gun rights types making the ridiculous argument that “if one guy had a handgun in that theater, James Holmes would have been shot dead.”

          You had a crowded, darkened theater, with screaming, running people, and a nutcase with military grade weapons and body armor. Some IT guy, or copier repairman, or mechanic, with a handgun was going to stop this? Sure he would…if he was Jason Bourne, Holmes stood no chance.

          I’m sure there are cases where one armed guy did stop things like this. Anything’s possible. But is it a practical defense? Hardly.

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            My cousins and uncle were very nearly in that cinema, but a change of plans that day caused them to postpone the outing.

            I completely agree with you. People tend to overestimate their shooting abilities, especially if they say they could hit and kill an armored gunman in a crowded, chaotic and dark cinema.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Here’s my thought of the day, from the other day.

            With regard to crime/violence/gun violence in young people, what effect will the burgeoning area of VR have? Teens will be playing GTA VI on their PlayStation VR set in first person, standing in their room with two controllers, mimicking the motion of beating someone’s head in with a bat, or shooting them.

            Methinks the translation to real life violence will be a much easier one to make at that point. And people will say “Kids have had violent video games for a full generation now.” And yes, that’s true. But the pixel protagonist in old GTA shooting a gun (which looked like a little triangle) from top-down view isn’t quite the same as having it 3D and surrounding your entire face, in fantastic detail.

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            As you know, I’m in my early twenties. My parents refused to let me play games like GTA that encouraged wanton shooting—so I went to friends’ houses and did it anyway (if you’re reading this, Dad, sorry!). I have a bit of a temper, but not nearly enough to actually want to put a bullet through someone’s head for a minor transgression. Truthfully, there are far worse things than death or physical pain.

            For VR games, who knows? On one hand, I’m of the opinion that reasonable people shouldn’t be sheltered from everything. On the other hand, kids aren’t reasonable. I also think that a lot of these shootings happen because people are desensitized to violence and the act of taking someone else’s life. VR vigilante games will only make that desensitization more severe.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            The law doesn’t work with regard to games, either. The 17 age restriction is moot when the parent buys it for Christmas for their nine-year-old.

            I’m with you on the irrational and malleable minds of children. Too young to see such violence, really. Even now, with GTA V in first person HD, you chop someone’s head with an axe, and watch the back swing as your shiny blade is covered in blood. With a nice controller vibration to let you know you made good contact with their skull.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Good point, Corey. I don’t think the problem with video games is that they cause violence per se.

            I think the problem is that it convinces people that they are GOOD at violence, and that it’s not difficult. Anyone can be a pistol-wielding death machine, like Jason Bourne, but in reality, the real-life Jason Bournes are physical and (probably) intellectual specimens, heavily trained and conditioned in how to do this kind of thing, and more importantly, when NOT to do it. They don’t just walk into some building and start blowing people away. Thank God, right?

            But it convinces some people that, in that darkened theater, with James Holmes shooting, they’d actually be able to shoot back effectively. More than likely, though, what’s the outcome of some average guy with a handgun bumrushing a nutcase with military grade rifles and body armor? I’m no expert on it but unless that guy was within a few feet of Holmes, I can’t see that working out for him. I can see him getting killed, and shooting other people too. That’s what happens when someone who isn’t a gun wielding superhero tries to be a gun wielding superhero.

            Video games probably contribute to this kind of problem, but I think their impact is somewhat overstated.

        • 0 avatar
          clivesl

          Corey,

          Or it goes the other way and young men have a realistic release for their aggression.

          As you said we’ve had violent games for a generation now and violent crime is going down overall.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            I don’t think it will work that way, a “realistic release.” Give the predator blood, it only wants more.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @Corey, you make a very good point. Why do corporations spend so much on advertising? Because it works. Same with desensitiving. The Nazis used this technique to dehumanize the Jewish population in the eyes of other Germans.

            As cited by Keegan and Fussell, studies after battles in the American Civil, Napoleanic and Crimean Wars demonstrated that a majority of the soldiers had not fired their weapons. They were more willing to stand and be killed than to kill another human. Most of the killing was done by artillery and about 10% of the soldiers. Those we might today consider to have been sociopaths.

            Entire industries were developed in order to provide the military with proper techniques to train their enlistees to become ‘killers’. Psychology and pharmaceuticals were their main tools.

            We are now in an era where war can be waged remotely, via drone and surveillance cameras. So violent electronic gaming can be a useful training tool for this type of warfare.

    • 0 avatar
      clivesl

      Corey,

      But it isn’t happening. Violent crime has been going down since 1995, and video games have only gotten more realistic and more violent since then. If violent games cause any societal violence at all it would show up in the numbers and it doesn’t.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        The thing that I’m worried about is not commercially available yet. Crime has decreased as cities have cleaned themselves up and hired more police.

        • 0 avatar
          clivesl

          But still, logic tells us that if playing violent video games translates to violence in life then violent crime will go up as a whole. Because you are adding new criminals that otherwise wouldn’t commit crimes.

          If the Violent crime decreases in the explosion of violent video games now available to pretty much everybody that is a hit on the Violent Video Games = Real Life Violence.

          Now you can get around those numbers by saying that external factors have driven down crime despite the increase due to video games.

          The problem there is you should still be seeing a massive uptick in violent crimes among gamer demographics and you don’t see that either.

          So where are all these bloodthirsty gamers?

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Sadly, we’ve reached the point of I don’t care. You win, in future very realistic VR will have no effect on young minds and propensity for violent crime.

    • 0 avatar
      This Is Dawg

      “he was shot multiple times by Hayes in the back and torso”

      Apparently, if you had a gun in this situation you would have been dead, but with a gun.

      From what I’ve read on the situation, it seems to have been the presence of Smith’s gun that resulted in his death.

  • avatar
    shaker

    And Wayne LaPierre grins a little bit, again.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    “Maybe it’s time to go get that concealed carry permit.”

    TTAC thanks you for ensuring this will be a long comment thread. I’ll add to it by pointing out that if Mr. Smith was shot in the back while still seated in the driver seat, a weapon (concealed or otherwise) wouldn’t have helped him.

    I shall now enjoy the festivities.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    We don’t need to return to the state of the “Wild West”, where everybody carried a gun just to ‘protect themselves.’ The vast majority of those weapons were for self-defense purposes, certainly; when you’re alone in the wilds and a snake is about to bite you or a boar or other critter about to trample and possibly eat you you needed something, but we’ve all seen how the car has become the weapon of choice for many in the case of “mine is bigger than yours” or some such idiocy. Life is enough of a battle without adding real violence into it.

    That said, we may never know WHY Smith was shot. Clearly it looks intentional and I’m sorry but self-defense is not an acceptable argument when Smith was shot multiple times and in the back. The only defense that MIGHT get Hayes off is some form of temporary insanity and that itself might be a questionable defense at best. This looks far too much like first-degree, not second-degree murder. We’ll just have to see.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    Bark brought Farago to the TTAC.

    Can we make everyday “Farago Monday?”

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    People complain about this “gun thread,” but ask yourselves a question – is this, or is this not, WORLDS better than the other ones you’ve participated in? I mean, try a local newspaper’s comment threads on stories like this – it’s a zero-IQ, insult-filled, seventh-grade-recess s**t show. This thread has had a minimum of ad hominem, which is borderline miraculous.

    There’s no group of people I’d rather talk about this with than the people on this site.

  • avatar
    e30gator

    Ah, guns. The perfect tool for hunting….but mostly for helping guys who’re afraid of getting their ass kicked whilst out driving feel safer.

    In all seriousness, I own a firearm that sits and collects dust in a locked safe. This is exactly where it belongs whenever I’m not in the middle of being robbed. Why don’t I conceal carry in my car? Because I’ll probably shoot someone (or get myself shot).

    Too many hotheads out there cruising around packing heat, using their gun as an insurance policy against someone who’s faster/stronger/louder. Fu*k that.

    99.99% of the time, waving an idiot by, or (if you get into an accident) staying cool and calling the cops will get the job done. Oh, and dashcams are the BEST insurance policy to have.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    The Boondocks (TV show version) had an episode that covered this. It is about a particular “moment,” and sadly Aaron McGruder has it pretty nailed in general.

    The type of moment uses a word I can’t type – but I think you can figure it out. Suggest you watch the episode – sure you can find it for free somewhere out there.

    Just a sad, terrible situation.

  • avatar
    Kevin Jaeger

    Ho-hum, another violent death in da ‘hood. It’s interesting in that the victim happens to be an acquaintance of Bark’s and also rich and famous, otherwise this story we be ignored with the dozens and dozens of others just like it that happen every week in places like Chicago, Baltimore, St. Louis, Detroit and the other livilier neighborhoods of American cities.

    It doesn’t really have much to do with cars or even guns, as you don’t have to look hard to find plenty of examples that involve neither. Just some innocuous interaction kicks the process off and once one party feels disrespected the situation escalates rapidly to deadly force. If there are no guns or cars around clubs, knives or a plain old head-kicking can be just as deadly.

    I bet we’ll find that the loose connection between these two will turn out to be of no significance.

    In this case there is at least one surviving witness – the guy’s wife. It will be interesting to hear how she describes the situation.

    • 0 avatar
      priapism

      Actually the Garden District is a very nice part of town.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Probably a good idea to know a little more about the area or location of a shooting before declaring it “da hood”. They give TOURS of the Garden District in NOLA as I went on one and it was nice.

      • 0 avatar
        Kevin Jaeger

        So the Garden District is an affluent area within a violent city. And?

        While the crime rate tends to be lower in the rich areas of violent cities, sometimes the main difference is that the cars getting shot up are just higher end vehicles rather beat up ghetto heaps.

        In Detroit we see things like State Senator Virgil Smith naked in his front lawn shooting up his ex-wife’s late model Mercedes.

        And while these were expensive vehicles and it happened in a rich area it turns out that the whole thing may have started with some very poor reactions by Will Smith himself.

        I expect Hayes will attempt to claim he shot in self-defense, fearing for his life. We’ll see if that claim holds up.

  • avatar
    Balto

    I live in east Baltimore, an area that is rife with gun violence. I don’t have a gun, nor do I want one. In the extremely unlikely event of a home invasion, I trust the louisville slugger in my bedroom a lot more than I would trust a shaky handgun in a dark room on a rowhouse lined street.

  • avatar
    priapism

    This happened a block or two from me. There’s a bar on the corner less than a block from the scene, that always has people sitting outside. The real miracle is that nobody there got hit.

  • avatar
    Snavehtrebor

    Update: apparently Smith rear-ended Hayes first, then fled, which set up the tragic/fatal/completely unnecessary confrontation.
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/surveillance-video-appears-to-show-will-smith-rear-ending-suspect/ar-BBrEYCf?li=BBnbfcL

    One of the best lessons to learn as a young man is that there is always someone bigger, stronger, and meaner than you are. Swallowing your pride and walking away is very difficult, and can occasionally save your life.

  • avatar
    sgeffe

    Lots of “the kids will find the hidden gun, and tragedy will result!”

    From a very early age, my brother and I were well aware of the Walther PPK 9mm in Dad’s sock drawer. We were also well informed that a) that weapon WILL KILL if used irresponsibly, b) you NEVER, EVER aim it at anyone at any time, NO QUESTIONS, and especially c) if caught even thinking of LOOKING at said weapon without Dad’s permission, the guilty party wouldn’t be able to sit for a week!

    The first week my boss’s brother had his CCW, he was gassing up his vehicle in a shadier part of town. A male subject approached him as he was finishing and stated something to the effect of “you’ve GOT to have some money on you — could you spare some?” When he was politely told to leave, this subject withdrew a knife from his pocket and repeated his plea. At that point, the CCW holder simply lifted his shirt just enough to show the butt of the holstered gun, and the would-be thief’s attitude became MUCH MORE apologetic, and he walked away. (In that situation, I likely would have actually brandished the weapon and held the perp at gunpoint (without a round in the chamber) there while activating the call-button to the clerk inside asking them to call the police, as under no circumstances when I clearly hold the advantage will I let someone just walk.) The point is that this situation could have ended MUCH WORSE than it did — it likely makes some low-lifes THINK TWICE about the petty crime they’re about to attempt when they’re staring down the barrel of a Glock!

  • avatar
    ToddAtlasF1

    They killed the wrong Will Smith.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • theflyersfan: I remember hearing those stories as well. They had so many problems at that plant and the cars were so...
  • pmirp1: If I were in charge of Hyundai, I have a come to Jesus moment with entire company. It is the culture of the...
  • Lou_BC: @Jeff S – I’ve moved between truck classes based on my needs. My 1st truck was a regular cab...
  • Corey Lewis: Wow, dark end.
  • Oberkanone: Nice vehicle. It’s outdated goodness is reminder of Toyota quality of the past when vehicles were a...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber