What do you do when somebody points a gun at you?

[blackveltbowhunter]

I don't think any of the responses have been dismissive of the behavior. The thread is what would YOU do. Not what should everyone do.

   IMO assuming is just the way life is. There will always be assumptions, If I assume lethal intent every time I have been scoped there would be several dead guys in the woods. And odds are I would be in a heap of legal trouble if not in prison, and worse a guilty conscience. Yes If I killed someone for scoping me who had no ill intent, I would feel guilty. However, My personal enemy to idiot in the field ratio, leads me to assume that when a gun is scoping me it is from A) someone who doesn't know what they are looking at and is trying to confirm identity. Or B) Someone who knows i am there and is wanting to "spy" on me and is doing so with the only optics available or is a lazy fool. Both situations are grave and require immediate and rapid attention, but only if significant events unfold to change my assumptions up to that point will I start looking for a rest from cover with intent to kill. In the mean time removing myself from harms way in and expedient fashion will be first on my mind.

After I have assessed the situation from safety, and the other party is aware, I am aware, I will attempt to contact them. If an amicable albeit stern/frustrated/pissed off investigation turns up situation A ,I will likely be satisfied with a good tongue lashing followed by assistance if needed.

If situation B is presumed, I will do everything reasonable to make sure they are penalized. Scoping a known hunter even if not meaning any harm , is idiocy that deserves harsh punishment IMO.

For the record I have been in situation A come up a couple different times, both times resulted in shed tears and a good lesson. Also the gun was pulled away AS soon as it was known that it had been aimed at the wrong thing.
 

[bigtex]

I believe some states consider the act brandishing or careless control of the firearm even in hunting applications subject to penalties...

WA is one of those states.

[dwils233]

one of my hunting partners started big game this year. While he had a nice rifle he didn't yet own bino's and used his scope and it really irked me and our other buddy. We were on private land with no one else to scope and we hunted in a pair with me spotting, but it was still obviously something we wanted to avoid in the future. His birthday came around and we split a pair of leopolds for him and heckled him pretty hard so I expect them to be around his neck every time we hit the field this year. I keep some old junker binos in my truck now just in case I'm in the field and anyone, even a stranger, wants to use a rifle to scope. They can have them, I can keep my cool, and no escalation hopefully.

"...avoid in the future." All due respects, I don't know you or your friends, or where you're hunting, but I have to say that I've rarely heard such a relaxed attitude toward "scoping". Even if you see a deer, you don't put the scope on it until you want to destroy it. Personally, I would have been as upset about that as I would the loss of muzzle control. I would have insisted they stop immediately and whether or not I ever hunt with them would depend on whether they took it to heart. Just my  .  I know: Boy Scout. My wife calls me that all the time.

You missed the sentence before it then (and I didn't make it entirely clear). I was his spotter with my binoculars, he didn't use it to spot at all. Only when I put him on a legal buck. I just didn't want that situation (me not hunting to spot for someone else) to happen again. And I wouldn't say have a relaxed attitude, I obviously used some creative control to not type in all caps about that experience or explain my frustration with the situation and how it was discussed the day it happened. I'm not going to curse someone out on his first day big game hunting or threaten to shoot him as others have said they might do. I'm also not going to prevent him from hunting on the only day he could take from his family. I'm going to use it as a teaching opportunity, and put my hunting on the back burner. To each their own

edited*

[Bob33]

I believe some states consider the act brandishing or careless control of the firearm even in hunting applications subject to penalties...

WA is one of those states.

RCW 9.41.230
Aiming or discharging firearms, dangerous weapons.

(1) For conduct not amounting to a violation of chapter 9A.36 RCW, any person who:

(a) Aims any firearm, whether loaded or not, at or towards any human being;

(b) Willfully discharges any firearm, air gun, or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place, or in any place where any person might be endangered thereby. A public place shall not include any location at which firearms are authorized to be lawfully discharged; or

(c) Except as provided in RCW 9.41.185, sets a so-called trap, spring pistol, rifle, or other dangerous weapon,

although no injury results, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

(2) If an injury results from a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person violating subsection (1) of this section shall be subject to the applicable provisions of chapters 9A.32 and 9A.36 RCW.

http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.230

[pianoman9701]

one of my hunting partners started big game this year. While he had a nice rifle he didn't yet own bino's and used his scope and it really irked me and our other buddy. We were on private land with no one else to scope and we hunted in a pair with me spotting, but it was still obviously something we wanted to avoid in the future. His birthday came around and we split a pair of leopolds for him and heckled him pretty hard so I expect them to be around his neck every time we hit the field this year. I keep some old junker binos in my truck now just in case I'm in the field and anyone, even a stranger, wants to use a rifle to scope. They can have them, I can keep my cool, and no escalation hopefully.

"...avoid in the future." All due respects, I don't know you or your friends, or where you're hunting, but I have to say that I've rarely heard such a relaxed attitude toward "scoping". Even if you see a deer, you don't put the scope on it until you want to destroy it. Personally, I would have been as upset about that as I would the loss of muzzle control. I would have insisted they stop immediately and whether or not I ever hunt with them would depend on whether they took it to heart. Just my  .  I know: Boy Scout. My wife calls me that all the time.

You missed the sentence before it then (and I didn't make it entirely clear). I was his spotter with my binoculars, he didn't use it to spot at all. Only when I put him on a legal buck. I just didn't want that situation (me not hunting to spot for someone else) to happen again. And I wouldn't say have a relaxed attitude, I obviously used some creative control to not type in all caps about that experience or explain my frustration with the situation and how it was discussed the day it happened. I'm not going to curse someone out on his first day big game hunting or threaten to shoot him as others have said they might do. I'm also not going to prevent him from hunting on the only day he could take from his family. I'm going to use it as a teaching opportunity, and put my hunting on the back burner. To each their own

edited*

You're right, I did miss that. Thanks for the clarification.

[DaveMonti]

I'm with jay on this.  I certainly don't condone this behavior, and would intervene if I saw someone doing it, but I think it's highly unlikely that someone  will shoot me while "scoping" me.  People get shot because they are mistaken for game, not because someone mistakenly pulled the trigger on a loaded gun while the safety is off while scoping someone. 

Yes, I know it's possible and may even have happened, save me your stories and your "what if" scenarios and your "you're-really-a-liberal-in-disguise-who-wants-more-people-to-die-by-guns-so-you-can-ban-them-forever" and whatever else can escape from under your hot collar because I disagree with you. 

While I would yell and probably even take cover, I'd chalk it up to someone being an idiot and I would not get confrontational.  I'd protect myself, but if it was obvious that someone was using their scope in lieu of binoculars to scope me, I'm not going to get all upset.  I personally think I face higher risk by riding my motorcycle on public roads. 

As I said, it's not a safe practice, and to make sure nobody does it, we have to teach everyone that it's a sin akin to actual murder.  I get it.  I just don't think it's a big deal and it certainly doesn't warrant me getting into a confrontation with a stranger, where the odds of getting shot go up exponentially.

Lol liberal?  Far from it buddy.  I love my guns and will stand next to anyone who wants to fight with me the day they try to take them.  However, I won't point a gun at you unless I am defending myself or I intend to take your life.  That is gun saftey.  Don't throw around accusations that you have no idea about  it has been a peaceful conversation.  We do not need any idiocracy going on here cause somebody wants to be high and mighty.  Thanks!

Huntingaddiction,
I am not calling you a liberal.  I am saying to other readers who have a different opinion than myself to "save your statements to ME that I'm a liberal" because I disagree with you.  Seems when there are differing opinions on some of the forums, some folks get nasty towards those with differing opinions and start calling folks liberal gun haters. I do not think you are a liberal gun hater. 

That all being said, if we look at the scenario that occurred (my assumptions next), where the guy was clearly "scoping" you and NOT preparing to shoot you, not mistaking you for game, I personally feel that while it's extremely rude to point a firearm at someone like that, and while I do not condone it, I do not believe I would be upset because the likelihood that the guy had a loaded weapon, with the safety off, and somehow got the gun to mistakenly misfire and actually HIT ME while he was scoping me is extremely low, lower than the likelihood that I die in a motorcycle accident.  Therefor, I'd not get highly upset and ream anyone out and get into a potential conflict.  I would chalk it up to normal human stupidity, which seems to afflict well over 90% of the people out there, and if I go the chance to have a discussion with him about his actions, I'd explain my point to him about the poor practice he exhibited. 

[Bob33]

Yes, it was foggy

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/14/nation/na-hiker14

The hunters actually had binoculars. Condensation from the fog caused them to be unusable, so they used rifle scopes instead.

[jay.sharkbait]

I'm with jay on this.  I certainly don't condone this behavior, and would intervene if I saw someone doing it, but I think it's highly unlikely that someone  will shoot me while "scoping" me.  People get shot because they are mistaken for game, not because someone mistakenly pulled the trigger on a loaded gun while the safety is off while scoping someone. 

Yes, I know it's possible and may even have happened, save me your stories and your "what if" scenarios and your "you're-really-a-liberal-in-disguise-who-wants-more-people-to-die-by-guns-so-you-can-ban-them-forever" and whatever else can escape from under your hot collar because I disagree with you. 

While I would yell and probably even take cover, I'd chalk it up to someone being an idiot and I would not get confrontational.  I'd protect myself, but if it was obvious that someone was using their scope in lieu of binoculars to scope me, I'm not going to get all upset.  I personally think I face higher risk by riding my motorcycle on public roads. 

As I said, it's not a safe practice, and to make sure nobody does it, we have to teach everyone that it's a sin akin to actual murder.  I get it.  I just don't think it's a big deal and it certainly doesn't warrant me getting into a confrontation with a stranger, where the odds of getting shot go up exponentially.

Lol liberal?  Far from it buddy.  I love my guns and will stand next to anyone who wants to fight with me the day they try to take them.  However, I won't point a gun at you unless I am defending myself or I intend to take your life.  That is gun saftey.  Don't throw around accusations that you have no idea about  it has been a peaceful conversation.  We do not need any idiocracy going on here cause somebody wants to be high and mighty.  Thanks!

That all being said, if we look at the scenario that occurred (my assumptions next), where the guy was clearly "scoping" you and NOT preparing to shoot you, not mistaking you for game, I personally feel that while it's extremely rude to point a firearm at someone like that, and while I do not condone it, I do not believe I would be upset because the likelihood that the guy had a loaded weapon, with the safety off, and somehow got the gun to mistakenly misfire and actually HIT ME while he was scoping me is extremely low, lower than the likelihood that I die in a motorcycle accident.  Therefor, I'd not get highly upset and ream anyone out and get into a potential conflict.  I would chalk it up to normal human stupidity, which seems to afflict well over 90% of the people out there, and if I go the chance to have a discussion with him about his actions, I'd explain my point to him about the poor practice he exhibited.

 

I think this is a great example of what to do.

I am alarmed at how many people who will escalate the situation and actually start shooting at someone who they think MIGHT be pointing a firearm at them. It is very hard to tell where a firearm is pointed even at as short a distance as 100yd.

And those who want to compare this to someone pointing a firearm at you on the street and at close range........get a grip

[JDHasty]

Yes, it was foggy

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/14/nation/na-hiker14

The hunters actually had binoculars. Condensation from the fog caused them to be unusable, so they used rifle scopes instead.

Color me skeptical: 

The boys both had rifles with 3X-magnification scopes and both looked through their scopes for “a few minutes” before the younger said, “It’s a bear, it’s a bear,” and, “I’ve got my cross hairs on it,” court documents allege.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/teen-charged-with-manslaughter-in-shooting-of-hiker/

Prosecutors say the young hunter was encouraged to fire at the target by his older teen-age brother who also misidentified the hiker as a bear through a riflescope.

http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/TEEN-HUNTER-ON-TRIAL-FOR-WOMAN-S-DEATH-78918

Both had a binocular that was fogged and unusable, but both rifle scopes were not???   

[Weatherby92]

This thread is very informative/alarming on how some "hunters" can be. That being said I honestly think that huntingaddiction did not act out of reason in anyway. This is something not to be taken lightly and will only hurt us with the whole "gun control" issue in the long run if it is allowed/escalates. I take it upon myself to help educate and instruct other younger or new hunters in safe acts and ethical hunting as I know all of you do as well. I feel like I'm preaching to the choir on this forum. I'm not out to look down on new hunters as I am a believer in the saying "you don't know what you don't know", but as long as they passed hunters safety they should know that it isn't  in the least bit excepted to scope someone. 

[Bob33]

Yes, it was foggy

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/14/nation/na-hiker14

The hunters actually had binoculars. Condensation from the fog caused them to be unusable, so they used rifle scopes instead.

Color me skeptical: 

The boys both had rifles with 3X-magnification scopes and both looked through their scopes for “a few minutes” before the younger said, “It’s a bear, it’s a bear,” and, “I’ve got my cross hairs on it,” court documents allege.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/teen-charged-with-manslaughter-in-shooting-of-hiker/

Prosecutors say the young hunter was encouraged to fire at the target by his older teen-age brother who also misidentified the hiker as a bear through a riflescope.

http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/TEEN-HUNTER-ON-TRIAL-FOR-WOMAN-S-DEATH-78918

Both had a binocular that was fogged and unusable, but both rifle scopes were not???

http://www.goskagit.com/news/judge-won-t-dismiss-charge-in-sauk-case/article_e93799c6-897c-5b98-858f-9b18d4c29fbd.html

"The attorney said in his opening statement that the boys had tried to use binoculars before they shot, but they were clouded with condensation. Weyrich has said in court the boys violated hunting regulations by not using binoculars."

[JDHasty]

Yes, it was foggy

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/14/nation/na-hiker14

The hunters actually had binoculars. Condensation from the fog caused them to be unusable, so they used rifle scopes instead.

Color me skeptical: 

The boys both had rifles with 3X-magnification scopes and both looked through their scopes for “a few minutes” before the younger said, “It’s a bear, it’s a bear,” and, “I’ve got my cross hairs on it,” court documents allege.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/teen-charged-with-manslaughter-in-shooting-of-hiker/

Prosecutors say the young hunter was encouraged to fire at the target by his older teen-age brother who also misidentified the hiker as a bear through a riflescope.

http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/TEEN-HUNTER-ON-TRIAL-FOR-WOMAN-S-DEATH-78918

Both had a binocular that was fogged and unusable, but both rifle scopes were not???

http://www.goskagit.com/news/judge-won-t-dismiss-charge-in-sauk-case/article_e93799c6-897c-5b98-858f-9b18d4c29fbd.html

"The attorney said in his opening statement that the boys had tried to use binoculars before they shot, but they were clouded with condensation. Weyrich has said in court the boys violated hunting regulations by not using binoculars."

Howson asked each of the investigators if they asked the two hunters if they had binoculars on them, and each investigator said no.

The boy told Walker that both brothers watched the figure through their rifle scopes for several minutes following what they saw as “the outline of a bear.”

A couple minutes is "forever and a day" when you are hunting and see what may be a game animal.  Is it not?

The older brother confirmed the sighting as a bear and the younger boy pulled the trigger, Walker recalled.

This leads me to believe that a couple minutes was actually under five seconds from first sighting through the shot being taken.  I think it is more likely than not that the first kid saw the "bear" first and when the second kid found the "bear" in his scope and was ready for a backup shot he dropped the green flag.

In the brief filed Thursday, Weyrich says Loftus’ planned testimony is common sense, which does not qualify him for expert testimony.

“It appears that the nature of his testimony would be ... simplistically, because the (boy) really wanted to see a bear, and because the conditions made it difficult to see clearly, that the (boy), in his own mind, thought he was shooting a bear,” Weyrich wrote.

IMHO, the first boy had seen the "bear" with his naked eyes and both had their 3-9 scopes turned all the way down (who outside of your's truly who has a 3 power Leupold kicking around somewhere has a 3 power scope?) in an effort to maximize the the field of view in an environment that makes it hard to get lined up on a target after bring their rifle up and that this took < five seconds total for both.  The younger boy got on it first and the second boy, a fraction of a second later whispered "OK, I'm on it" boom.  OK, so they both had already "identified the woman as a bear and the younger boy whispered he was on it and when the other boy said:  OK, I'm on "it" the younger boy pulled the trigger.  The older boy was not IMHO endeavoring to confirm the ID, he was confirming that found the target in his scope and therefore was ready for a followup shot.

I am a binocular user, they are up and down fifty times every five minutes when I am still hunting.  I have a Badlands chest binocular pack (four of them) and my binocular is tethered so I can just drop it and it will hang if I don't have time to slip it in.

But the big thing here is they were NOT "scoping" to find game.   They screwed the pooch by not confirming with their binocular BEFORE raising their rifles.  Yours truly normally hunts from a blind or a tree stand and  as such has all the time in the world (like two or three seconds to bring up his binocular first and look to make certain there is not a second animal and a shoot through) and all indications are that this spotting of a "bear" suggests the "bear" was unaware so that gave them all the "time in the world." 

Not really "scoping" but still a major screwup.  I don't want to come off as a "know-it-all" but I purchase a really good binocular for my kids and give it to them when they turn three.  I want their binocular to be a part of them that they feel naked without when in the field.  I want it to be a great optical instrument and I want them to take great pride of ownership of it. 

My family ownes the optical instruments daddy has bought and they have names like Leica, Swarovski, Vortex, Leupold and Nikon attached to them.  Daddy bought some (or had them given to him) long before they were born and they are there for everyone in the family to use.  Being totally comfortable and relying on fine optics is something I want them to live.  Daddy's mom did a great job of trying to support daddy's interest in the out of doors and provided daddy with what salesmen recommended within a certain price point and daddy is, and will be forever grateful.  But what I had still left a lot to be desired.  Mom was not competent to make a selection and I ended up with an eight to 20 power Bushnell variable because that is what the salesman said was the best they had at that price, and mom looked to the expert. 

Mom was not an expert, but daddy is and daddy has an interest in making the absolute best choice and daddy is also connected and can get real expert advice and then do an independent eval before purchase.

I have done the research and my budget was south of a buck fifty and if nothing else resonates with all of the stuff I post please, at least, give some consideration to making a selection geared towards getting your kids so comfortable with their binocular that it is something they feel naked without. 

OK now, the purchase price is only the beginning.  From age three through six and a half YOU are going to focus it and hand it back.  AND, you are going to let the kids trade with you and use yours and if you choose the 6-30 Leupold Yosemite I recommend the FOV and DOF is going to make them wanting yours a thing of the past real soon.  They will be able to see what you are pointing out through THEIRS long before they will be able to be successful through an 8x42 or such.  AND they will figure out all on their own that their binocular is better than yours. 

I'm talking < a C note here guys.  And it will be money well spent.  Leupold has been very, very good to daddy, but daddy is not a special pleader for Leupold.  Nikon has also been very, very generous over the years.  But I did the research before my oldest child turned three and you are encouraged to validate what I am recommending, when I did likewise for nieces and nephews two decades ago it was Baush & Lomb and Nikon who got the nod (and my money).

Please, like I said, if nothing else I have posted, or will ever post, give what I post on this topis some consideration.  My seven (and a half) year old is totally comfortable with relying on her binocular today.  Her sister just turned three and will look through the wrong end on hers she just got, but make it second nature.  Using (relying on) optics is no different than learning a second language.  Start them young and it comes naturally.     

   

[coachcw]

Zero excuse  to point a gun at anything you don't plan on shooting . If the jack wagon was driving a new pick up he could afford  good glass. He would definitely  know what a idiot he was when I was done with him . NO REASON TO COME TO BLOWS OR HUN FIRE . but a good tongue lashing would be in order. I have had young hunters do it , I yell for them to put down there  weapon . Then I approach and explain the severity  of there actions , I blame the parents for that , educate the kid and don't ruin  hunting for him. I did it once when I was a kid and learned my leason. Never happened again .

[Mudman]

Many do this crap.  Answer to question is BEAT EM!!!

[DaveMonti]

This thread is very informative/alarming on how some "hunters" can be. That being said I honestly think that huntingaddiction did not act out of reason in anyway. This is something not to be taken lightly and will only hurt us with the whole "gun control" issue in the long run if it is allowed/escalates. I take it upon myself to help educate and instruct other younger or new hunters in safe acts and ethical hunting as I know all of you do as well. I feel like I'm preaching to the choir on this forum. I'm not out to look down on new hunters as I am a believer in the saying "you don't know what you don't know", but as long as they passed hunters safety they should know that it isn't  in the least bit excepted to scope someone. 

I want to clarify, I'm only stating what I would do.  I'm not saying anyone is "wrong" in their approach (other than those who would drop into a prone position and start firing IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION).  I'm just saying how I would handle this situation, the risk I see associated with it, and how I have very little faith in the intelligence and common sense of most humans. 
I am SURE that the offender now has a memorable impression about scoping someone after huntingaddiction got done with him.