Well, “shoot the shit” is not just a saying at his house, if you know what I mean.
That’s not actually true. There have been many threads about what people do/have done while under the influence of various illegal substances that have not been locked, so long as they don’t contain any information about how to obtain the substance, or how to use it.
This debate is still going on?
Wow I’d hate to see what happens when someone gets a serious warning from a moderator. :eek:
UnregisteredBull it seems you detected a lot more in SamClem’s warning than was really there. I also thought (or at least was hoping) that both posters were joking about shooting cats and/or children.
Incidentally, UnregisteredBull, (not that I felt offended by this), not all of us city folk are anti-gun tree-huggers. I live in Boston and I am a gunowner. I’ll admit I have never done any hunting. However, in the country (where my Pappy lived), it was necessary for me to do some occassional “varminting” as they say. I think I don’t hunt out of laziness more than anything else. It’s a lot easier to go to the store than to track down game for us “city folk”.
Come on folks - lighten up. 
No pigeons in the park any more?
That’s the problem with city living anymore. If you want to do them in, you can’t shoot them, you have to poison them.
With arsenic-laced popcorn. You can get some from the guy with the 90° toes.
I find that they really go for peanuts when coated with cyanide.
Lute, if you’re ever down in Dallas and you’re free, why don’t you come with me
And we’ll poison the pigeons in the park
And maybe we’ll do in a squirrel or two
That fowl expression with a slight modification was used less that a week ago by Clothahump in this thread.
I agree with you that there is a tiresome amount of disdain and ignorance concerning non-urban residents and environments at SDMB. But those comments come from a vocal minority, I think.
This forum is privately owned. My understanding is that the owners have a right to determine what they will allow to be discussed. If there is a bias against pancakes and they want to forbid mention of the word in our posts, I suppose they can do that. If they want to appoint a moderator who objects to the mention of killing animals, they can do that too.
I hope someone will correct me if I am mistaken.
I live in a rural area and the law here is you can set up your own shooting range as long as you are positive that shots fired at the range won’t traverse into another’s property. So if I set up a shooting range that faces an empty lot that doesn’t belong to me, and the bullets riddle trees on the other lot, I could get in trouble for it.
Also it has to be a certain distance from the road and I cannot discharge towards the road in any way, either. The road is public property, after all.
As for shooting animals they have to be a legitimate nuisance, I’m not allowed to shoot a dog that just walks onto my property.
I didn’t say “all jurisdictions” had it as illegal to be firing off shotgun blasts at nuisance dogs, I said in “most” jurisdictions. And virtually all urban or suburban areas in the country covers a lot of jurisdictions.
Well, as the partial subject of this, let me explain my thoughts.
I thought samclem was wrong to say I should not suggest the shooting of animals. I do think it is a legal response in many jurisdictions, and many people would not bat an eyelash at doing it. It depends on your view of animal rights, and I don’t need to get into that debate here. I could see it if he thought I was only saying it to try to bait the poster, as I did stupidly miss the “don’t want to harm them” part of the OP. However, I apologized for that as soon as it was brought to my attention, it was an oversight, and I don’t think that was the reason samclem made the statement (at least I hope it wasn’t; you can trust me or not, but I really was simply too stupid to read the OP thoroughly the first time).
Where I think I was wrong was in responding to Atroxe. Since we’re now in the Pit, I can say I think his response was that of a complete asshole, and at least to me was a very disturbing thing to say (that he considers killing someone’s children to be an appropriate response to killing someone’s cat that comes on to your property). That being said, I responded to it. Although samclem didn’t say it, I actually turned myself in, because I realized that I should have simply reported the post. I don’t like to report posts because I don’t like being a snitch, but rules are rules, and I also realized that starting a little hatred war in General Questions wasn’t very nice either. So when I turned myself in, I basically said, “Hey, this guy’s being a complete asshole, and oh yeah, I admit I was a moron for responding to it.”
samclem is right when he said “I don’t think he and I have a problem.” As I said, I still think his statement of “Don’t suggest shooting cats” (if taken as a general statement applicable in all cases, not just when you are too stupid to read the OP that said “I don’t want to harm them”) is a subjective value judgment that should not be applied in a moderation capacity. At the same time, I don’t hold a grudge against the guy or anything, and though I think he was wrong as to the substance of his comment, that’s different than thinking he was maliciously out to get me or some type of jerk about it. He seemed pretty cool about it, didn’t threaten me, and behaved like a civilized human being.
So in shorter words, it’s my opinion that the comment was wrong, but I don’t think that samclem is a bad guy. In other words, both Unregistered Bull and samclem are right! 
That’s my whole problem right there. I expect more from the Dope than that. Taking the position that since one agrees with a clear display of bias then using that bias to base moderating decisions upon is fine is one thing. But not even seeing the bias is intellectually dishonest. Neither does much in fighting ignorance.
I will point out that Samclem admonished Slyfrog to not mention shooting animals. Not to not shoot cats. And not to not mention shooting them in the specific thread where the OP stated that she didn’t want to harm the cats (which Slyfrog apologized for BTW before the death threatener even jumped into the thread). Just not to mention it period.