Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day: Tim Hall

rabid+fox

Deuces writes:

Rabid fox attacks are not uncommon. Caught On Tape: Wild Fox Attacks ManFox bites elementary school children and 3 Treated After Fox Attack In Kennesaw, for example. Tim Hall was the latest victim of the game of foxes (and I don’t mean the Farago book of the same name). Mr. Hall was luckier, I mean, more prepared, than other residents bitten in Henry County. “Anything that would run at me like that is not normal,” Tim Hall told wsbtv.com. “Hall . . .was on his deck around sunset when he noticed a fox racing along the fence. He went inside to get his handgun. When he came back out, the fox raced toward him. ‘At that point I pulled my pistol and fired a round at him,’ said Hall.” His shot missed. What earned him my IGOTD: reporter Tom Regan and a camera man convened on Tim’s property for a reenactment. What happens then is not what I call muzzle discipline. Autoplay video after the jump . . .

comments

  1. avatar John L. says:

    And that right there’s the problem with an idiot-proof smart gun.

    It’s just too dang easy to make a better idiot.

    1. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

      Well done…read that one to my wife and she laughed so hard she snorted.

      Twice.

      Our villages have no deficit of idiots, and dang, we just keep on keeping’ on making better idiots. Or worse idiots. Depending on your point of view.

  2. avatar Ralph says:

    I’m sure that Mr. Hall did exactly what the TV crew asked him to do and that he cleared his pistol appropriately.

    FYI, I had a fox den in the brambles ringing my backyard a few years ago. The kits would sometimes sun themselves in my yard. It’s unusual to see foxes in the daytime, but not unprecedented.

    When the little critters saw me, they took off like someone had set fire to their bushy little tails.

    1. avatar John says:

      I’d be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. If we could never, ever point our guns at each other under any circumstances, we’d miss out on a lot of instructive things like demonstrations of technique and force-on-force training.

      1. avatar Sabrewolfe says:

        This is why they make blue/red guns and dummy barrels. I don’t care what your reason is, you should NEVER intentionally violate Rule #2 and you should do your best to never do it unintentionally, either. If you want to practice force-on-force more realistically, buy a gas-blowback airsoft replica and wear appropriate safety gear.

        1. avatar New Continental Army says:

          In the army we had to point barrels at each other all the time during different training scenarios, and when in theater when doing different tasks someone getting flagged by loaded guns even gets common. Trust in the person, and equipment.

          Having said that I wouldn’t of done what the guy in the video did, pointing it at the camera, that would be a no go from a pure propaganda point of view. “Look at this crazy gun nut pointing a gun at our camera crew”

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          Did you ever clean a rifle from the muzzle? You did? Where can we send your IGOTD Award?

        3. avatar Sabrewolfe says:

          Right, so because it’s done in the military, it couldn’t possibly be a bad idea. No such thing as deaths due to “training accidents,” either. *rolls eyes* I’m sure you recall, there is the Right Way, the Wrong Way, and the Military Way to do pretty much everything.

          I understand, especially in house-to-house and other CQB situations, inadvertent muzzling will happen. But I say again, it should never happen intentionally and unintentional muzzling should be avoided as best as one feasibly can.

          Especially seeing as this IGOD is in reference to a civilian here State-side, not infantry or Marine squads clearing houses in Iraq.

        4. avatar Sabrewolfe says:

          @Ralph – As a matter of fact, no, I haven’t. It’s one of the things I really like about the AR platform: you render the rifle inoperable before you clean it. Same thing for my handguns. Field stripping: it’s a thing.

    2. avatar Sabrewolfe says:

      It really doesn’t matter if some moron on the news crew directed Mr. Hall to point his weapon at the cameraman or not. He’s still the one that’s responsible for keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction at all times. It doesn’t matter if five different people all cleared the weapon. He violated Rule #2, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. I’d say he earned his IGOD award.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        I have a bunch of WW2 rifles that are meant to be cleaned from the muzzle. Yes, from the muzzle. There’s even a crown protector that slides over the cleaning rod so I can clean those rifles without damaging the crown. So I guess I should get an IGOTD whenever I clean a MN 91/30, M44 or K98k.

        And when my Sgt. checked my rifle, he checked the breech, cleared the gun and then — GASP! — looked down the barrel!!!!!!! Holy crap!

        IGOTDs for everyone — including every soldier who ever lived.

        1. avatar Sabrewolfe says:

          Really? Really, really? You are going to equate cleaning a weapon with intentionally pointing a firearm at another human being? /facepalm

  3. avatar Sammy says:

    “Look out Ned! It’s commin’ right at us!” Jimbo, South Park, Co.

  4. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    That is a wicked opening picture!

      1. avatar Rainhaven says:

        We named our cat Fizzgig when I was kid. +1 Internet for the Dark Crystal reference!

  5. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    I’d say he needs a lot more time at the range to have missed that badly.

    1. avatar JR says:

      Moving targets can be challenging…especially when it is aggressively moving AT you.

  6. avatar Hannibal says:

    For those of us unable to watch video a brief synopsis would be nice (and is usually provided on these ttag articles)…

    1. avatar JR says:

      Cameraman mimicked fox’s movement by holding camera low to ground and running across the yard toward Hall. Mr. Hall drew and pointed to simulate taking his shot … at the camera.

  7. avatar New Continental Army says:

    What kind of Fox is that? Thing looks vicious. I’ve seen foxes before, non had legs that long or a tail like that. Screw that thing, I’d unload into it.

  8. avatar m says:

    Grampa Biden says: “Get a shotgun! A double barreled shotgun! Go out on the porch and fire two blasts!”

  9. avatar Larry Perkins says:

    I’d like to point out that, from the video, we know he pointed his gun at the camera; that does not necessarily mean there was a “warm body” in its vicinity.

    From the low angle of the camera and the “speed” with which it seemed to be “moving,” I have to question whether there was actually a person next to the camera. It may be that the camera was set on/near the ground and the apparent motion created by remotely actuating the zoom. If that be the case, Mr. Hall is being unjustly criticized…

    …Of course, if there were an actual human being next to the camera at the time he was pointing his firearm, then the criticism is not nearly harsh enough!

    1. Rule #2 says you never point the gun at anything you are not willing to kill or destroy. He at least pointed it at the camera and I doubt they used a remote zoom feature as the frame was dodging side to side to simulate the movement of the fox. I am pretty sure the cameraman was running with the camera. Tim also pointed the gun at the news crew’s truck. I guess he was willing to destroy their ride back to the station too.
      This was my entry into the Sig competition but it did not say so in the title. Are IGOD articles not eligible? I did not read the fine print. I still have the weekend to get another entry in. I will come up with something better.

      1. avatar Mrbadnews says:

        I’m not willing to put camera man in danger, however, if the camera man wants me to point a gun at his camera without him behind it I’m willing to shoot the camera pieces at his request. Not my camera.

        Still though, it looks to me that the camera man held the camera low from the side and rushed toward the shooty guy. Too shaky to have been a zoom. So, yea, its a Rule #2 issue.

        Let this be a lesson to us to not be coaxed into firearms foolishness.

  10. avatar Vhyrus says:

    Meh. Not a big deal.

  11. avatar Bruce L. says:

    Does anyone know how many rounds it took for one kill in Vietnam? I can’t remember if it was 10,000 or 100,000. Anyway, missing a running fox doesn’t surprise me at all even if he had a 30 round mag and used them all.

    And have any of you every been to a gun show? Hundreds, or even thousands, of guns are pointed at people all day long. No one dies, or even gets shot. I agree, never point a gun a someone, but it can be done safely.

    1. avatar JR says:

      The number I remember reading was 40,000 or thereabouts. But, I cannot recall where I read that specifically, except that it was a book about Scout/Snipers.

      The number for WWII was orders of magnitude smaller, which makes one wonder if there really was a degradation in marksmanship training between the two wars that came with the move to full auto weapons.

      1. avatar jsallison says:

        Change in doctrine. In Vietnam everyone got into the full auto suppressive fire game because everyone could. You take a draftee army with little time to train markmanship and provide autorifles and a usually difficult to see enemy and clue them in on ‘fire superiority’. Then watch some clips showing guys raising their rifles above the ditch and unloading the magazine at who knows what.

        40 years later it’s the jihadis blindly unloading their AK’s while american soldiers are more usually firing aimed shots. Makes for a quieter battlefield, don’tcha know? The guys who kept the faith for aimed fire have been vindicated.

  12. avatar Jon in CO says:

    @JR: Could go as far to say it was the caliber change?

    1. avatar JR says:

      Perhaps. I wonder that as well.

      Probably the truth is some combination of factors, but it seems clear SOMETHING changed that made infantry riflemen less efficient (by the metric of rounds fired per enemy soldier killed).

  13. avatar Maineuh says:

    I’d hardly call that a fox. She’s not even that hot.

  14. avatar Phillip says:

    I don’t know many people that could hit a running fox with a micro compact CCW pistol. Wrong tool for the job.

  15. avatar Lfshtr says:

    Jeeze, coming at you, hmmm, just like BG would. Practice, practice, practice, that’s what they say! They say a gun fight is about 2 rds. so two mags. of 12 Rds. don’t mean crapola. I need my 18″ shotgun, without sights.

  16. avatar jon says:

    YOUR VIDEO DOES NOT SHOW UP IN MY BROWSER!

    I’m using Chrome.

    1. It works fine for the rest of us.

  17. avatar jon says:

    So, I can’t see the video, but if you see a fox running around your property, and you’ve already gone inside: WHY, for _____’s sake, would you go OUT again?! Why???

    I just think to myself that if there are no other people in the area, your dog or your kids are not outside, then there isn’t really much of a reason to go out again – might as well just let it pass.

  18. avatar Bdk NH says:

    A shotgun and some 3″ Nitro Turkey in No. 4 would have likely insured the end of that Fox. Assuming the shooter has a brain, that load can also be shot fairly safely in a relatively tight quarters of a back yard. Pistols aren’t meant for shooting on the move at a something on the move.

  19. avatar Guardian says:

    Was that an XDS?

  20. avatar janitor says:

    damnit, i have the same pistol

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email