A Kansas City driver, Ian E. Jones, who cut off another driver after pulling out into traffic is the victim of road rage. He nearly caused an accident by pulling into traffic, but it wasn’t a car crash that led to his death. It was the fact that the man who Jones’ car cut off was packing, and in true vigilante fashion he exacted his own version of justice on the now deceased Mr. Jones for his crime of reckless driving and failure to yield the right of way. This unknown victim of Jones’ poor driving habits took out his gun and shot Jones — dead.
When Jones pulled out from 19th Street onto the Paseo in Kansas City, he inadvertently pulled in front of a dark-colored car, nearly hitting it, witnesses told police.
The angry driver aimed a gun at Jones’ car and fired once. The bullet crashed through Jones’ window and struck him. He drove a few blocks before crashing on the wrong side of the road near 23rd Street and the Paseo.
Officers found Jones, 22, conscious and leaning out of his car with blood on his shirt. His eyes were swollen shut.
He told police he was leaving the area of 18th and Vine streets when he suddenly lost the ability to see. Police described him as calm and alert, but seriously wounded. He died days later.
I guess that’s one way to deal with bad drivers. And, hey, I’m sure our shooter can make the argument it was self defense or necessity. At the very least he can claim he was doing the community a public service by eliminating a dangerous driver for all eternity. After all, isn’t the death penalty supposed to be a deterrent? If we all knew we might get shot and killed for minor traffic offenses because every driver had a gun wouldn’t that give you pause the next time you took your beloved gas guzzler out for a spin around the block? Wouldn’t that make you pay just a little more attention to obeying the traffic laws?
Heck, think of the benefits from an open season on bad drivers. More people with guns on our roads and highways means less need for police who waste time and money every year making traffic stops for minor violations. If someone drives too fast, rear ends you, or just honks his horn unnecessarily wouldn’t it be justifiable homicide to just take out your .357 Magnum and blow them away? Admittedly, at first it might get a little bit dicey driving to work or the grocery store or taking your kids to soccer games, but think of the potential benefits. Less money wasted on police departments for traffic enforcement means less local taxes you’d have to pay. And less fines for traffic violations means no need for Traffic Court, thus bringing us even more elimination of bloated government waste!
And after the initial “winnowing” process, there would be fewer drivers on the streets. Less wear and tear on the roads would mean less spending on road maintenance and fewer delays caused by “road work.” Not to mention that with fewer drivers and fewer cars on the roads we could reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases significantly, thus helping to stem the tide of Global Warming. It’s a win-win folks. Well except for the people who end up dead, but then they should have practiced more at the shooting range before getting in their cars and endangering the safety of others. Besides the more dead people the lower our unemployment rate. Think of all the job opportunities this new carry guns everywhere policy would create once we clear away some of the deadwood whose stubborn refusal to quit their jobs is stifling employment opportunities for young people and those who are currently unemployed.
You know, I think I’m with the NRA on this one. The more people carry guns everywhere they go, the better for America. Not only would it be a “stimulus’ for our economy (e.g., American gun manufacturers, sellers of Kevlar vests, bullet proof window makers and coffin manufacturers would all benefit immediately), but also just think of the increased civility it would engender in our society. Hey, I sure ain’t gonna flip someone off or call them a jerkwad (or worse) if I know they might be “armed and dangerous” (and quite possibly a better shot than I am). What’s the downside? Seriously?
Since older drivers make most of the really egregious driving mistakes, it would also help save Medicare by keeping it solvent.
Absolutely! And save Social Security, too!
Just some innocent questions:
Where exactly are 19th Street and the Paseo in Kansas City?
What are Kansas’s gun laws?
Was the gun legal? Oh, we don’t know because the murderer wasn’t caught–or was he?
There have been some incidents (it’s a big country after all) in which the driver who was cut off, instead or reaching in the console for his gun, pursued the offender and ran him off the road. Do we need to get rid of cars? OK, don’t answer that. I’m for transit too.
To be clear on where I stand. I take the attitude of the Old West: Son, don’t take your gun to town.
Stephen, you may be on to something. Back in the early days of Oklahoma statehood, my grandfather did odd jobs in and around the town of Meers, nestled in the edge of the Wichita Mountains, just west and north of Lawton. He said back then everybody carried a gun. And he said most folks were very, very careful not to tick off anyone else, because everybody knew the other guy had a gun too.
Crap, I misspelled your name. Sorry, Steven.
The impact of your post is dissipated because you call him the “deceased” Mr. Jones. Thus when you say he was shot “dead” people already know that.
I really have nothing else to say because what else is there to say?
True, if you brought your magnum it might get a little bit dicey driving your kids to soccer games, but think what you could do with it at the soccer game! Sometimes you’re so negative.
This is so disrespectful to Ian and his family. Would you want someone to write an article like that about you? Do you know his driving habits? This is uncalled for.
You seem like you are promoting violence, you might not be. Have you ever accidently cut in front of someone? If not good for you. If you did, did you mean to do it?
your snark detector is set on ‘literal.’
Whatever!!! Im not being trying to be mean or anything just stating a fact that the article is disrespectful.
Your Snark detector is set on RUDENESS, & DISRESPECT if don’t think that the article was offensive. Im not saying the artic to be literal. All Im saying is that it was disrespectful to Ian and his family literal or not.
Clarity: Im not saying the article wa meant to be literal All I am saying is that it was disrespectful even if it was not meant to be literal or not.