###Updated### Group input needed for GC&RKBA policy on allowing self-defense from animals...

[krispos42]

This discussion thread is pinned.

Last edited Wed Mar 5, 2014, 12:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Hello all,

Recently, this thread by jpak, with reasonably graphic video, was posted in GC&RKBA. In short, it's about a snowmobiler who shoots what appears to be a moose calf after the moose acts in a very aggressive manner towards the snowmobiler and his companion.

The firearm used is a semiautomatic pistol (I believe it is a Glock) and five rounds are fired, downing the young moose before the snowmobilers flee the scene.

The Group's Statement of Purpose is: Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.

This has historically been used and generally understood to apply to human-on-human violence; however, the posting of the moose video shows what is, arguably, a human defending himself against an animal. I was alerted on the thread twice, and that left me with an interesting question that needs resolution.

DU also has a Group for outdoor activities called Outdoor Life Group; its statement of purpose is:Discuss all aspects of hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, rock climbing, mountain biking, skiing and other outdoor sports.

The question before the Group is this: should discussions of defense against animal attacks be allowed in GC&RKBA, or should such threads be locked and referred to Outdoor Life?

This would mean that discussions of animal-defense guns and ammunition would be allowed in GC&RKBA as well as criminal-defense hardware, and that stories about people (joggers, bikers, etc.) shooting dogs, bobcats, badgers, etc., would be allowed.

Constructive input is appreciated.


***** Edited to add *****


I can see from the replies to this thread that the consensus of the respondents are that self-defense against animals fits within the SoP of the Group.

I'll pin this thread to the top of the Group for future reference.

Thank you, everybody, for your input.

-Krispos42

[rrneck]

1. Firearm laws include the carry of guns in state parks

and other outdoor spaces, so the moose shooting would fall within that part of the SOP. And of course, the guy in the video may have been on a snowmobile, but the point of the video was his shooting of a moose.

I'd say let it go.

[jpak]

2. If gunners want everyone to carry a gun everywhere all the time

They must own up to the consequences.

Gunners have stated in this forum that they need guns to protect themselves and their pets/livestock from predators with 2, 4 or no legs.

Gunners have to take responsibility when their holy guns are used to kill animals, pets and humans.

yup

[spin]

8. I agree with you. I legally carry on a regular basis and I realize ...

that if I misuse my weapon in any manner I should be charged and face the penalty.

I realize that there should be absolutely no doubt that I used my weapon for legitimate self defense and had good reason to fear for my life or health when I did so. If there is a reasonable doubt I should face a trial and present my defense.

Any concealed weapons permit classes will emphasize this point.

[Loudly]

3. Perfectly legit in GC&RKBA and would vote so in a poll.

The availability of guns and ammunition in the hands of the public is the meta issue.

As a so-called "right?" Or as a privilege based upon society's evaluation of claimed need on a case-by-case basis, keeping very close track of product and entrusted to whom?

Holding constant at all times as an absolute public good the minimum amount of that shit out there as possible.

[NYC_SKP]

4. The video is allowed by the "the use of firearms for self-defense" just barely.

Hosts can take into account more than SOP and if a member seems to be posting flame bait, it's within the scope of power of a host to lock.

When the posting member uses terms like, "Holy Gunner" and "Holy Gun", then I think it's clear that they seek to insult a broader class of people than the individual idiot who shot the moose.

A post that is a stupid gun-owner action posted without comment doesn't seem to be one that's looking for a discussion.

As such, the OP in question didn't really meet the SOP.



However, to answer the question: "should discussions of defense against animal attacks be allowed in GC&RKBA, or should such threads be locked and referred to Outdoor Life? "

I would have to say, "yes", as it's still self-defense and it doesn't really fit the outdoor sports group.

But I wish people could post without using insults.

It makes DU suck.

[ileus]

5. If they're troll threads yeah lock em'

Do sleds have a reverse? I assume with front skis probably no.

I'd probably have gunned the machine around the little feller, but that's just me.

And what was with carrying the pistol not chambered? That's what should be discussed most about the video.

In the moose thread we'd be better to discuss acceptable calibers and loads for protecting life from dangerous wild animals. What's good to stop human attackers isn't generally acceptable for four legged threats.

[gejohnston]

6. I think it does fall withing the SOP

Last edited Sat Mar 1, 2014, 09:45 PM - Edit history (1)

If the game warden catches up with Mike Dunn of the Yukon, he will most likely claim self defense. I frankly think his claim would be almost, but not quite as, full of shit as Mike Dunn of Florida's.
Poaching, which I think this is, is a crime that is often committed with a firearm. A firearm is used in this case.
If it were legal hunting and taking the meat to eat, then it would be in Outdoor Life.

[spin]

7. I posted a reply in the thread under discussion in reply to you. ...

Since it is possible that you may miss it, I'll repost it here.

I know a number of people who legally carry concealed as they mainly fear attacks by ...

wildlife or unfenced dogs while out walking.

Several years ago a neighbor two houses from mine let her small dog out in the yard and it was attacked by a large Rottweiler who was running loose. She managed to get her dog back inside her home but the Rottweiler tried to follow and forced the door open. My neighbor who is in her sixties solved the problem with a handy broom and managed to chase the Rottweiler back outside. Unfortunately the attack caused her tiny dog to spend a long time at the vet recovering and he had to be castrated because of his injuries. Needless to say this pet suffered a lot and had doggie PTSD.

At the time my daughter and I took turns walking her Boston Terrier. We both had concealed carry permits and we contacted the local police chief to see if it was legal to shoot this dog in the city limits if it decided to attack our Boston Terrier while out walking. He told us that he saw no problems if we did.

Fortunately the Rottweiler did not attack any other dogs or people that I know of. The police were never able to determine who the owner was.

I suggest that using a firearm for self defense is a topic that should be allowed in this group. It's not a sport but can be legitimate self defense.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. Yes these types of discussions should be allowed

Self-defense is a rather universal and basic concept. Defending yourself from a bear with a firearm fits the group SOP. Defending yourself from a school of trout with a stick of dynamite doesn't.

[oneshooter]

10. I see no problem with such postings.

However, if it is posted with derogatory and/or insulting comments then I don't see any problem removing it, and possible the poster also.

[Eleanors38]

12. ^^^ My sentiments ^^^

[appal_jack]

19. I concur as well. nt

[DonP]

20. What they said.

Legit story, fine Asshat using it to troll, lock it and dump them.

[ManiacJoe]

11. Defense against animals should be covered under self-defense.

I have no problem with the "self-defense" topic covering both human and animal aggressors.

In general, pushing defense-against-animals into the Outdoor Life forum would probably be a stretch of OL's SOP, but I as host would probably let it stand with the proper framing for discussion.

The debate over the individual video in JPak's OP being self-defense is a separate topic.

ManiacJoe
Outdoor Life host

[Eleanors38]

13. The controllers have a license to pump bilge in GD..

why didn't 6pak pump it in there?

[Eleanors38]

14. How does the OP in question differ from "gun porn?"

[Electric Monk]

15. That thread posted by jpak was NOT self-defense. The snowmobiler was calling the moose, and

pursuing it and taunting it until the moose reacted.

That thread was about a gun owner being a cocky asshole because he knew he had a gun.

So, I say it falls under the "use of firearms to commit crime and violence" part of the SOP.

Again, that was NOT self-defense.

[clffrdjk]

16. Yea because yelling HEY!!!

Is the universally known method of attracting large wild animals.
Your hatred of all things gun related blinds you to what's right in front of your face.

My opinion on that post is to let it stand because yes it was self defense, the animal aggressively approached three times, first time it was scared off by yells, second time it got in two or three kicks, what would it have done on that third approach?

But back to the questions on the Group policy, I think we should be considering whether or not copying from another source and using that as your entire op, without any original comment, should be allowed or considered the spam it is.

[sarisataka]

17. In that case, it was not SOP

but could go into the other group under the part of SOP that says "post insults and fallacies then engage in mutual back slapping as to how all of the posters the group has banned are too afraid to answer the OP"

[sarisataka]

18. IMO self defense

includes 4 legged threats.

Some will post flame bait, but then a troll must do what a troll does.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. I vote to allow. I recently posted a thread about a young girl who defended her family from a

mountain lion. Besides, I don't think people hoping to discuss the more pleasant aspects of the outdoors want to be troubled by such distressing stories.

[jimmy the one]

22. Allow it/them; no text

[Lizzie Poppet]

23. Legit topic for the group, IMO.

Many gun control proposals could have an impact on people who elect to carry a firearm or self-defense against animals. So even though this group is focused on the legal/political aspects of firearms ownership, this is still on-topic.

[DrCyCoe]

24. Dangerous game drives carry permits here

Last Fall a number of local residents took the required training for a handgun carry permit in Wisconsin. I was not present but had helped some friends select their first carry gun who were in the class. When asked why they wanted a permit, the overwhelming number said Wolves. These people live in wilderness areas, own guns and hunt but now they carry as well. When I bird hunt, i carry a handgun to protect my dogs. Same goes for walking any distance from the house with the dogs.

[The Green Manalishi]

25. Nope. I am pro RKBA, but no shooting anything you aren't going to eat

Maybe a pack of free running dogs in a city IF they are attacking, but NO wildlife, no animal on it's own property, period.

[BarstowCowboy]

26. The privilege of arms should be extremely limited

Arms are a necessary evil. Their use should be confined to those with an absolute need, such as the Police, the Military and those who protect important members of society such as prominent politicians and entertainers.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

27. Self defense is self defense.

I'd have to think about shooting badgers, though. I guess if they were attacking ...