Giving us a bad rap.

[bobby964]

Talk about giving us a bad rap.(SHOOTERS IN GENERAL)http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17964382/[ftp]]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17964382/

[rockbilly]

This case clearly supports my idea that as shooters and hunters we have to police our ranks.  It may not always win friends, but when we see another shooter or hunters doing something like this, we should be the first to call the authorities, and be willing to go to court if necessary.  Failure to stop something like this only mushrooms to the point that it makes all of us look bad.

I know it is hard to turn another hunter/shooter in for doing something wrong, but why should anyone want to jeopardize their right to hunt so some idiot can break the law?

I would nor recommend confronting an individual like this, he may turn on you.  Just place the phone call, state your name, and let the authorities handle it, that is, unless you know the person and have no feat of retribution.

[Bear Rider]

Are you guys really foolish enough to believe everything that you see in print? Haven't you ever hear of PhotoDraw or PhotoShop? Remember, you are talking about left wing journalists here -- a species that compensates for their lack of intelligence by their complete lack of ethics.

[dukkillr]

Are you guys really foolish enough to believe everything that you see in print? Haven't you ever hear of PhotoDraw or PhotoShop? Remember, you are talking about left wing journalists here -- a species that compensates for their lack of intelligence by their complete lack of ethics.

I know I've seen more read signs shot than not shot.  And I doubt photoshop can do anything with the signs I see in person on the side of the road.  Just because a journalist says something doesn't make it wrong.  Gotta always remember to evaluate what was said, not who said it.

[williamlayton]

I must be abusive to people with guns. There are enough road signs shot up everyday than we have the ability to replace.
It is a fact that SOME with a gun have just got too shoot something, without giving heed too safety, field of fire, what is out of sight, who is around or their ability to operate their mind while under the influence of whatever drug (includes alcohol) of choice they choose.
There are some BUBBA'S who are fortunate they have not shot or killed another human, it certainly is not due to them exercising good judgment.
Folks, this is not  a position which has defense.
Blessings

[Dusty Miller]

Rockabilly is right, we shooters/hunters MUST take the lead in bringing these armed bozos before the courts.  These are the same kind of idiots who'll go after a deer, pronghorn, pig, even elk with a .223 and if it is wounded and runs into the bush to heck with it.  If we don't police our own ranks there are plenty of people out there who'd be more than glad to do it for us. 

[Bear Rider]

I know I've seen more read signs shot than not shot.  And I doubt photoshop can do anything with the signs I see in person on the side of the road.  Just because a journalist says something doesn't make it wrong.  Gotta always remember to evaluate what was said, not who said it.

I DID evaluate what was said. That picture would be so easy to fake that any halfway competent 12 year old could do it. Note that the shooter is fuzzy enough that not only would identification would be impossible, it would be also very easy to blend him into an existing landscape. Note also that he is far enough removed from the sign so that there are no conflicting elements.

I not only evaluate the character (or lack thereof) of the author(s), I examine their evidence. You should try doing both. When you think journalist, remember CBS and the exploding pickup gas tanks.

[dukkillr]

I know I've seen more read signs shot than not shot.  And I doubt photoshop can do anything with the signs I see in person on the side of the road.  Just because a journalist says something doesn't make it wrong.  Gotta always remember to evaluate what was said, not who said it.

I DID evaluate what was said. That picture would be so easy to fake that any halfway competent 12 year old could do it. Note that the shooter is fuzzy enough that not only would identification would be impossible, it would be also very easy to blend him into an existing landscape. Note also that he is far enough removed from the sign so that there are no conflicting elements.

I not only evaluate the character (or lack thereof) of the author(s), I examine their evidence. You should try doing both. When you think journalist, remember CBS and the exploding pickup gas tanks.

And, again, why would anyone fake this?  It'd be like photoshoping a roadkill or something.  It would take more work to fake it than it would to drive out and find a sign.  In the rural areas of Kansas and Missouri where I frequent the vast majority of signs are shot. 

Every criticism of gun owners isn't invalid and/or a conspiracy, sometimes it's the truth.

[Bear Rider]

And, again, why would anyone fake this?  It'd be like photoshoping a roadkill or something.  It would take more work to fake it than it would to drive out and find a sign.  In the rural areas of Kansas and Missouri where I frequent the vast majority of signs are shot. 

Every criticism of gun owners isn't invalid and/or a conspiracy, sometimes it's the truth.

There are two very valid reasons why a journalist would fake this particular picture of a man behind a sign prohibiting shooting.

First, journalists are by and large lazy trash who wouldn't hesitate to lie in order to further their aims. (Remember CBS and the exploding pickup gas tanks?)

Second, what are the odds of a journalist bopping down the road and finding just this particular physical arrangement of shooter and sign?

By the way, have you even bothered to look at the picture in question? IIRC, the sign was in pristine condition.