You dirty rat you

[Rob Tucker]

I'm all for calling the police then. i can think of zero reasons why any random Mom pushing a stroller down any random residential neighborhood should have to be accepting of gun fire. Maybe 1 percent of the population might be ale to tell the difference in the sound of a .38 at a quarter mile or a .22 at 100 yards.

Remember, before it was illegal it was legal. The laws were put into place because of community interests. There are many sensible ways to kill a rat without alarming your neighbors or risking their safety. Don't people have a reasonable expectation to enjoy their home life in peace?

Punaweb moderator

[JWFITZ]

Well, practically speaking, in many these neighborhoods moms don't take strolls with the kid because of the loose/feral dogs. This is the context we're having this conversation in. Puna isn't Manhattan.

Does having a reasonable expectation to enjoy their home life in peace, in your mind, include the right to protect oneself from harm?

It troubles me when anybody gets into the "I can see zero reasons" frame of mind. This attitude by necessity precludes constructive conversation.

[Rob Tucker]

I can see zero reasons why gun fire in a residential neighborhood should be tolerated. This doesn't preclude discussion. It just points out that poor rationalizations (feral dogs prevent Moms from strollering) justify disrespect for the law.

Punaweb moderator

[JWFITZ]

Then, by your definition, and experience, which neighborhoods in Puna SHOULD discharging a firearm be tolerated, and which ones should it NOT be tolerated? I'm assuming that your definition of "residential" may be more sophisticated than what one sees on the title. If the answer is "none," it seems we're back to zero reasons again, and zealotry precluding constructive conversation. It seems to be necessary to remind people on occasion--not everyone lives in Hawaiian Paradise Park. Much of Puna is very rural. Yet.

The law generally engenders its own respect by how reasonably it is both scripted and applied.

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JWFITZ

I wouldn't consider my neighbor shooting a rat to be "random gunfire."

---

I agree 100% that there is a BIG difference between random gunfire and shooting a rat. But not everyone is as sophisticated and knowledgeable as you. So maybe in the interest of educating the idiots out there, how about telling them how to tell the difference between a:
1- Random Gunfire
2- Shooting at a rat
3- Shooting a person.

To my ears they all seem to sound exactly the same, but it's clear you have some secret inside knowledge that the sound gunfire makes when shooting at a rat is distinctly different than other uses and people who can’t tell the difference are ignorant. I assume that as the bullet exits the barrel it sees its target and changes it's sound so people know it's not a random or a criminal act but a neighbor shooting at rats. Or maybe it sends out some electronic signal that alerts those with the proper “Bullet Sound Intended Purpose X-100 Decoder” about its intentions. (Telling us where to buy one would be a big plus)

You have to excuse those of us who are audio challenged and can’t tell the difference between a bullet fired for rat extermination and a bullet fired for other purposes. So please educate us.

Thanks.

[JWFITZ]

It is very simple, obviously so.

Gunfire, by itself, does not constitute nor indicate a crime, any more than the sound of breaking glass does, by itself. If you have other contextual reasons to expect a crime involving gunfire has occurred, then it would be sensible to report it. To report a single report of a firearm wholly without context is irresponsible. And it is this kind of knee-jerk reaction that is insensible and dangerous. To assume that everything that remotely sounds like it might have been a firearm indicates the occurrence of a crime is reactionary.

And the assertion here isn't even very sincere. .22 caliber powered nailers abound. Most people(though not all) can tell the difference between a framing crew and a fire-fight. I doubt we're asking for much.

[csgray]

I recently spent a day driving around Lack's neighborhood looking at houses, and after driving almost every street I have some observations: this is not a "semi-rural" neighborhood, it is a subdivision with many houses on 7-10,000 sq. ft. lots; there were many children out playing in and near the streets, especially the dead end ones; there were also many moms pushing strollers, people out walking and running, and people working in their yards; houses are close enough together that the sound of gunfire would be disturbing to many residents; and while we saw many loose dogs, but not a single one looked feral, or acted aggressive until you approached their driveway. Lack may be a decent shot and know how to pick appropriate ammo, but every time he shoots in his residential neighborhood with impunity he is giving tacit permission to every other person to "exercise his right" regardless of their skill level or judgment with firearms.

I grew up in a truly rural farming community where a gun was more of a tool than a weapon, but every deer hunting season I couldn't ride my horse in our own woods for fear some suburban hunter from the nearest city would shoot me. Other neighbors painted huge florescent stripes on their livestock to keep them safe. Guns are not inherently dangerous, but in the hands of fools they sure are. Gun control laws and regulation of where you can shoot exist because so many gun owners think they have the right to shoot any weapon, with any ammo, in any environment regardless of the rights of others to live without fear of being shot in their own yard. There is a time and a place for everything, but shooting guns on a suburban sized lot is just selfish and self serving; unless you are in dire circumstances where it is the only way to protect yourself or others.

If you are that concerned about diseases from rats then make it difficult for them to frequent your trees, wrapping the trunk with a smooth metal collar works well, and there are other products available too. Poison can be put in bait stations that keep neighborhood pets out, while letting rats in. I recommend getting a good ratting dog or cat, we had a 7 pound calico who killed a rat a day, every day, until the day she died. Once she had wiped out the population on our property she moved on to the neighbors' yards and went after their rats. We had one neighbor who threatened to shoot her for leaving paw prints on his windshield until he saw her take down a rat bigger than her that was working his bird feeder. Suddenly he became a big fan of that cat.

Are you sure this wasn't more about having a justification to shoot your gun that it was about getting rid of the rat? Otherwise, why post it to Punaweb?


Carol

[Rob Tucker]

Well put Carol.... I know the neighborhood too.

[JWFITZ]

Thank you Carol, you are absolutely right and I'm glad someone finally pointed out the elephant in the room.

The fact is, Tom's purpose in this whole exercise is very clear to me. And, while it's not something I'd want to take on, some one is going to, and they're going to win. In some sense, I certainly laud it.

Hawaii's gun laws are clearly, in light of the Federal court rulings of last summer, clearly illegally restrictive. Remember, the context of "bearing arms" was Washington DC., and there's nothing on the Big Island that is remotely that urban of a context. You don't have to agree with the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but a right it is, and it's a fact. Short of re-writing the constitution, it will remain as it is.

There is, I'm sure, a movement to contest these laws. You can be well sure that local police are aware of the issue and will treat issues like Tom's big-game hunting with kid gloves. They are undoubtedly in a difficult position. I'm certain that they will have instructions to not make arrests, as the local PD, even the state, isn't in a position at this moment to have Hawaii's gun laws ruled unconstitutional, nor bear the burden of the litigation involved. The result will be as we see--a quasi legal situation that I'm afraid will have ill effects.

So, there you go. This is why I believe aggressively advocating personal responsibility and a sensible non-dogmatic on all parts is probably the most constructive thing we can do concerning the issue.

[Greg]

Sorry Jay, I don't buy the "cry wolf" theory. I pointed out that our neighborhood doesn't suffer random gunshots since we started taking a proactive stance against it.

I also don't agree that police are wasting their time with "lesser offenses". By that reasoning, they shouldn't be giving traffic tickets because someone may be robbing a bank elsewhere.

Finally, you say: "Gunfire, by itself, does not constitute nor indicate a crime".

Wrong. It does if it's in a residential neighborhood.