Gun Nuts up in arms over man shooting a squirrel in the suburbs

SquirrelGun Nuts are different than gun owners. For example, Gun Nuts are the people who slithered into Nevada to “defend” Ted Cliven Bundy and his mooching ways. Ted Nugent is a Gun Nut. John Lott and Larry Pratt and oh yes Wayne LaPierre are Gun Nuts. Gun owners are sane, rational people, who understand that there are certain things you simply do not do with a firearm. Like shoot at a squirrel, with a gun, in the suburbs where you could potentially miss, and hit another human being.

Enter James Toigo, of Milford, Connecticut. Mr. Toigo, who I think we can all agree might qualify as a Gun Nut, was arrested on Monday, April 14 for shooting a squirrel in his backyard. He has been charged with, among other things, animal cruelty, reckless endangerment, and failure to register an assault rifle. As you may recall, Connecticut recently enacted some of the toughest gun laws in the country, because Connecticut lawmakers obviously have more courage than Congress. Mr. Toigo may have missed the memo, because according to police, he shot a tree rodent in his backyard.

Gun Nuts are very upset that James Toigo was arrested. In their world, this is wrong, it’s a sign of OBAMA’S COMING FOR MAH GUNS (it’s been five freaking years, let it go already), and Mr. Toigo should be able to shoot at squirrels wherever the hell he wants. See a squirrel skipping through the parking lot at the local mall? Shoot it. At a park? Shoot it. Outside a local school? Shoot it. Except, no, you can’t do that, but Gun Nuts are completely ignoring the part of Toigo’s story that is the most disturbing. He shot a squirrel, with a gun, in a suburban neighborhood.

This entire event was brought to my attention by my stepson. As a parent, he was outraged when, using Google maps, he was able to take a look at the backyard in which James Toigo fired at a squirrel. Toigo doesn’t live in the middle of a field, or on acres and acres of land; he lives here. He is surrounded by homes, families with children, pets, other people. And it is in this neighborhood that James Toigo whipped out a firearm, and shot a squirrel.

To a Gun Nut, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what Toigo did. Gun Nuts want to meander along city streets, semi-automatic weapons draped lovingly across their backs, or holstered to their Confederate flag belt, or heck, grasped in their patriotic hands. Gun Nuts do not understand that firing a gun in the suburbs is dangerous, and in most states, illegal. There’s a darn good reason for that: You have no idea where the bullet will go. Cristian Manzano was shooting at a target in his backyard when a bullet from his firearm struck a 9-year old girl in the head. The girl was inside her home, and the bullet traveled through a kitchen window. Manzano was arrested and charged with causing serious bodily injury to a child, and “discharging a firearm in a municipality greater than 100,000 residents.”

But that’s not what matters, the Gun Nuts cry. What matters is libruls are coming for mah guns, and we need a Second American Revolution, and I know my Glock can take out a Blackhawk helicopter because Alex Jones says… oh my GOD make it stop. What James Toigo did is illegal, dangerous, and incredibly stupid. What Cristian Manzano did is illegal, dangerous, and incredibly stupid. Thank goodness (or luck) that Toigo didn’t hurt any people during his rodent slaughtering spree; we cannot say the same for Manzano. This all might support the belief of many that the primary reason Gun Nuts are so terrified of universal background checks is they couldn’t pass one.

Squirrels are annoying. We had an entire herd of them, living in the backyard of our Vermont house. One morning, I looked out the kitchen window and saw a squirrel, standing on its little hind legs, eating my tulips. Not the bulbs, the actual tulips. I ran out of the house, in my bathrobe, screaming “Get away from there, you bleeping tree rat!” Never in a million years would I have shot it. Our neighbors on the right had twin toddlers, our neighbors on the left had already been visited by a SWAT team (that was an interesting afternoon), there were dogs in backyards, and kids playing across the street. What kind of idiot thinks it’s perfectly fine to shoot a squirrel in the suburbs?

It’s harder to buy Sudafed than it is to buy a gun in America. Thanks to websites like Armslist, felons can buy guns. Gun Nuts were horrified by the Supreme Court ruling that strengthened the laws keeping guns out of the hands of people convicted of domestic violence. Most Americans cheered the decision, but not the Gun Nuts. They see this as a gun grab, Obama’s coming (you know the rest), infringement on their Second Amendment rights, etc. We need more guns, not less, don’t lock ’em up, keep them on you at all times, in your shower, in the car, in bars, churches, everywhere.

You can’t shoot a squirrel in the suburbs, you can’t shoot a target in your backyard in the suburbs, and thank you SCOTUS, for helping keep guns out of the hands of abusers. Now, can we do anything about keeping guns out of the hands of Gun Nuts?

Erin Nanasi

Erin Nanasi is the creator of The Bachmann Diaries: Satirical Excerpts from Michele Bachmann's Fictional Diary. She hates writing about herself in the third person. Erin enjoys reading, writing, and spending time with family. And wombats. Come visit Erin on on Facebook. She also can be found on Twitter at @WriterENanasi.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Bine646

    Its very clear to me Erin is from the city and has never lived in a rural area. Suburbs use a pellet gun to kill those rodents

    • Jonas

      It’s clear you didn’t read he article, because this guy didn’t discharge a firearm in a “rural” area. He lives in a suburban setting.

      • Bine646

        I read it, she went on a rant about shooting squirrels and doesnt even describe the weapon he discharged- was it a .22 or a 12 gauge- big difference.

      • James A

        Since one of the charges was failure to register an assault rifle my educated guess would be every “gun Nut” with an extra mall penis’ favorite the .223 AR-15 or something similar.

      • Bine646

        Sounds like you are familiar with the size of gun owners penises huh- thats alittle weird

      • Charles Vincent

        Only because they are bigger than the ones he usually polishes.

      • Wayne Langley

        Why to troll, Chuck.

      • Charles Vincent

        did you mean way?

    • Ravenesque

      What does that have to do with anything? If this incident had happened in a rural area, it wouldn’t be an issue. It didn’t happen in a rural area. it happened in a suburb, where your next-door neighbor is literally next-door, and not a mile down the road. It is idiotic to think that you can fire a gun in a crowded neighborhood and not risk hitting another person. It’s idiotic to think that sitting around shooting at them is going to rid your yard of squirrels. Did he think that if he shot one, the rest would hear the news and be too frightened to return? I live in and was raised in a rural area, and have lived in crowded suburbs as well. There is a vast difference between shooting a gun in your back yard when your nearest neighbor probably wouldn’t even hear it, much less be injured by it, and shooting your gun in your back yard, which is 30-50 feet away from your neighbor’s homes and yards.

      • Bine646

        Article doesnt even say what weapon he discharged- im sure he wasnt outside w a 12 gauge. The “assault” weapon wasnt even used to shoot the squirrel, it was discovered in the home after- pffff

      • MrLightRail

        He was charged with having an assault rifle.

      • Bine646

        Yes im sure it was an ak47 and not a .223- biggggg difference

      • Ravenesque

        You don’t think it’s possible to hit a neighbor with that? And regardless of whether or not it was the assault rifle that was being used, he was still firing a gun in a residential neighborhood, which is illegal, dangerous, and incredibly stupid.

      • Bine646

        He should of used a pellet gun or .22- what these guns r for.

      • Ravenesque

        Uhm.. have you ever fired a .22? Have you seen what the bullets from a .22 do when they hit something solid? What on Earth makes you think that a .22 is safe to fire in the middle of a residential neighborhood???

      • Bine646

        Haha yes i have been shooting a .22 since i was 6 yrs old. We use to hunt squirrels and other rodents in the woods

      • Ravenesque

        The key phrase there: “in the woods.”

      • Bine646

        She is making it sounds ridiculous that someone would shoot a squirrel instead of yelling at it- like she did in vermont. I can remember visiting my family in the city n my grandfather and uncles cleaning the squirrels off the birdfeeders w the .22. They also disposed of their aerosol cans with it- guess its a new day n age.

      • Phil Keast

        Used to go to a school where we had a firing range, 50 m long (OK, a small firing range), and the .22 was the most common caliber used. The back of the the range, behind the targets, consisted of railway sleepers. Those railway sleepers were seriously damaged, by .22 ammunition. If a .22 round can penetrate, and seriously damage, a railway sleeper, what could it do to the kid next door? When did a realistic evaluation of risk become, not only an inconvenient requirement of rational thought and responsibility, but an infringement of one’s rights? I have yet to find the Constitutional Amendment mandating the right to be an inconsiderate asshole.

      • Bine646

        1) most common round used- not the only. 2) the first amendment allows you to be an inconsiderate asshole- freedom of speech. Stick to australia and your gun confiscation n kangaroos

      • Phil Keast

        1) Most common used, nothing of a larger caliber or penetration was allowed on the range, since it was considered irresponsible to use such weapons in an urban environment regardless of the strict oversight and enforcement of gun safety protocols.
        2) Freedom of Speech does not equate to freedom to accidentally shoot the neighbor’s kids.
        3) Quite happy with our gun laws, much fewer deaths from firearms per head of population. Despite some insisting that all gun control manages to do is take guns away from law abiding citizens while leaving them in the hands of criminals, analysis of the rates of crime involving firearms shows that it didn’t happen.
        and 4) This is an open forum, with no restrictions as to who follows it. What happens in the USA does have consequences beyond the borders of the USA, so I will continue to voice my opinions. Ignore me if you wish, but good luck getting the administrators of Forward Progressives to ban posts from non-USA commentators, they’d laugh in your face.

      • Bine646

        Ya global warming, thats an issue worth discussing, wheres that leave melbourne w the rising waters coming?

      • Phil Keast

        Let’s see, “Gun Nuts in arms over man shooting a squirrel in the suburbs, global warming. Failing to see a connection here.

      • Charles Vincent

        It’s the butterfly effect…

      • Wayne Langley

        What idiot takes a .22 squirrel hunting?

      • Bine646

        ?? Really?? Seriously?? What kind of person asks that question- i know, one who has no idea what hes talking about- aka an idiot

      • Wayne Langley

        A .410 shotgun is more that sufficient for squirrels when shooting into a tree you idiot.

      • Bine646

        Well, “idiot” a .22 travels further, allows for head shots. Your .410 is putting 5-8 pellets into the body of the squirrel ruining the meat, plus doesnt travel as far. Happy Easter, you just learned something about hunting- give me those keys n ill show you how to drive that car too

      • Wayne Langley

        How long are the are shots you taking? I’ve never had a problem putting pellets into the meat. I don’t use 8 shot. You have to be dead, solid perfect with a .22. I can kill a squirrel with only a couple of pellets.

        You hit the meat with a .22, you might as well leave it for the buzzards. I very seldom hunt anymore, even though I own almost 1,400 acres of land with several deer, wild turkey, quail, and doves in the area.

        I simply shoot what I will eat. I don’t just kill for sport. What us conservationists do. The only thing I shoot, and leave, are all the feral hogs that ruin the ecosystem, and habitat for most of the wild game.

        You’re welcome,

        Wayne Langley

        P. S. You’re not man enough to handle all the muscle that car provides.

      • Bine646

        Yes you are right, with a .22 you actually have to hit the squirrel- not just aim and spray with the shotgun. Squirrel has a small amount of meat, who wants to sit around picking out pellets? An amateur thats who. As for the distance- they are all over the place- sometimes over 100 yards up into trees jumping branch to branch- i mean you are a hunter why am i explaining this to you- its a squirrel?

        As for your car, new shelby supersnakes are putting out over a thousand horse- if i can handle that i can handle the 400 urs is putting out- enjoy all the hunting in arlington county wayne- i know fort worth has alot of great hunting to offer

      • Wayne Langley

        Try Stephens County out around Breckenridge way. Squirrels are few, and far between with the vast majority of trees being Mesquite.

      • Bine646

        He didnt use the “assault” rifle to shoot the squirrel, it was discovered in the home

  • Charles Vincent

    Maybe that was his lunch and a new sheath for his knife? Also its called a scurry or a dray of squirrels not a herd.

    P.S. Dear SCOTUS
    Please revoke Mrs. Nanasi’s journalism licence.

  • Maureen Waterhouse

    Interesting that someone went to all the trouble to create a fake account for Mrs. Nanasi and proceeded to then make personal attacks against her. They neither read the article or are interested in the facts. But that doesn’t matter to Cletus T. Gunhumper. No. Dead family pets or dead neighborhood kids are beside the point. This is not, by any description a rural setting. But any common sense restriction about where a firearm of any kind is discharged must mean you hate Murika, Erin.

    I’m frankly amazed some of these animals can type, given the pain they must feel from having their knuckles scrape the ground continuously. I could be less concerned with the opinions of these Trailer Park Lifers.

    Facts really do have a Liberal bias

    • Charles Vincent

      That’s great they are most assuredly not concerned about you and your bigoted attitude towards people that don’t see things the way you do.

      • MOWaterhouse

        And you have no interest in the public safety of those living around him who have no interest in getting shot because some moron is obsessed over a squirrel. I get to be bigoted against someone who refers to a perfect stranger’s husband as a child molester after you’ve gone to the trouble to make a fake profile of the author. It’s one thing to have a philosophical disagreement, but what you did was disgusting. If you’ve got a legitimate position – take it. If you don’t, you make a fake profile of someone you perceive as the enemy and then proceed to make a libelous comment about her spouse. Yeah – I know it was you.

        And I’m a bigot? I apologize. Didn’t realize you were a gay black man.

      • Charles Vincent

        Bigot applies to intolerance of more than just race or creed and I was referring too;

        “I’m frankly amazed some of these animals can type, given the pain they must feel from having their knuckles scrape the ground continuously. I
        could be less concerned with the opinions of these Trailer Park Lifers.”

        Not only is that statement bigoted but it’s also condescending/arrogant.

        “And you have no interest in the public safety of those living around him who have no interest in getting shot because some moron is obsessed over a squirrel.”

        Wasn’t commenting on this^^^.

        “I get to be bigoted against someone who refers to a perfect stranger’s husband as a child molester after you’ve gone to the trouble to make a fake profile of the author. It’s one thing to have a philosophical”

        This is Liable and Slander against me. I didn’t nor have I ever used any profile but this one with MY name and MY picture attached to it so people know I said it, is that clear enough for you Junior?

        Secondly Learn to detect Sarcasm/facetiousness, and or outright nincompoopery.

        Third this is a text book definition of a pedophile;
        “my husband could pretend he is banging a 10 year old boy.”
        Silly liberal I know the difference between a troll on a fake profile and the real deal.

        “If you’ve got a legitimate position – take it.”

        I do and I did but since you seem to lazy to scroll down and see it here you go;

        “Maybe that was his lunch and a new sheath for his knife? Also its called a scurry or a dray of squirrels not a herd.

        P.S. Dear SCOTUS
        Please revoke Mrs. Nanasi’s journalism license.”

        People of all political leanings make poor judgment calls and it’s a puerile tactic to paint others with the same leaning with that broad brush.

      • Maureen Waterhouse

        Ooh, we’re full of ourselves, aren’t we? Did I hurt your widdle feelings? Must suck to get called on your own shit. You don’t know the difference between libel and slander and if you think I committed either, sue me. You don’t like being called out for sickening behavior and you were caught dead to rights, you knuckle-dragging trailer park lifer. You created a fake profile and then accused her husband of being a child molester. Don’t try claiming the moral high ground. You lost it at your first post. Claiming you were joking doesn’t fly, Sparky.

      • Charles Vincent

        Believe what you want I use sarcasm all the time its the fun of posting to trolls like you. Actually I didn’t make a fake profile and if you didn’t know there are alan clifton, ilssya fuchs and jasdye fakers running around as well, also not me. Messing with you has now become a priority because I obviously got under your skin and now I can antagonize you a bit more and have a bit of a laugh doing it.

        Furthermore the only one here that’s butt hurt seems to be you considering the vehemence I am getting. Are you going to call more names next reply maybe some death threats haven’t gotten any of those yet it will give me something to shoot for.

        As for the moral high ground your remarks don’t set that bar very high so it wouldn’t be a challenge for me to claim them. Actually I do know the difference and your not worth the time or effort.

        You are liable for any slanderous words you utter.
        Liable meaning legally responsible, and slanderous meaning any untrue statements of a defamatory nature made about another person.

        P.S. as Matthew would say your use of Ad Hominem is an admission of defeat chief.

      • Maureen Waterhouse

        Your creation of a fake profile & then immediately calling her husband a pedophile is, be definition, trolling. If I’m personally your singular priority because you got caught & called on your shit, is, by definition, trolling. Libel is written, slander is spoken. When you call your attorney, get it right troll boy. Turning yourself into the victim with your, “it was sarcasm!” “I was making a funny for my other troll friends!” “Joking!” What do all those devices have in common? They have the charm of being, you know… Mildly funny. I’m the last person to criticize anyone who spends their days, living in their mother’s basement alternately blasting anyone voicing a sane opinion on gun use and alternately beating off to porn, but next time maybe you can do something classy, like attacking the parent of a young gun victim. And don’t worry. I’ll be right there to tell the world who you are. The man who makes fake profiles for the the sole purpose of character assassination of people who dare to disagree with him.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Your creation of a fake profile & then immediately calling her husband a pedophile is, be definition, trolling.”

        Firstly that fake profile post had been up several hours before I posted you cant see it because it was removed.

        “If I’m personally your singular priority”

        You’re not that important you only moved up the list a notch.

        “you got caught & called on your shit”

        You didn’t catch anything. You’re basically fabricating shit that never happened to obfuscate and trying to act all indignant that i call you out for being an arrogant ass.

        “I’m the last person to criticize anyone who spends their days, living in their mother’s basement alternately blasting anyone voicing a sane opinion on gun use and alternately beating off to porn, but next time maybe you can do something classy, like attacking the parent of a young gun victim. And don’t worry. I’ll be right there to tell the world who you are. The man who makes fake profiles for the the sole purpose of character assassination of people who dare to disagree with him.”

        ohhh noooooo I am crushed I cant go on….

        you’ll be right there really yay I have a stalker are you going to build a shrine in your closet? And decorate it with stolen items from my house?

        On a sour note I am disappointed there were no death threats in that post.
        “Libel is written,”
        Where did I say anything about libel? ooh that’s right I didn’t I said liable, nice straw-man argument.

      • Maureen Waterhouse

        You falsely caused me of slander. Just helping you out when you call your attorney. You know, for someone who pretends to be so dismissive of me, you spend a lot of time dissecting my every word. I like that.

        Yeah, you created the fake profile. Yeah, you accused her husband of being a pedophile. Yeah, I’m getting more amused by you with each passing post.

  • Dan Root

    this moron idiot gun nut irresponsible gun owner should not have used a 22 to shoot anything in a residential area. christ i’ve known since i was 10 year’s old that a 22 cal bullet left un checked will carry some distance.i believe but i will not swear this is true but i think it is 1 mile.i may be more prejudiced than some on the subject of gun’s and weapon’s in a city setting .i lost an eye at four year’s therefore i think i missed out on a lot of life period! i don’t and i won’t let that influence my opinion on this incident the guy need’s to face a judge and jury and deal with his punishment period.

    • Edward Krebbs

      1 mile is roughly right, depending on whether you’re talking a standard 22, a 22-long, etc.

    • Bine646

      Wheres it say in the article he used a .22?

      • Phil Keast

        OK, you’ll argue in one section of this thread that it wasn’t the assault rifle he was charged with possession of, it was probably a .22. Yet here you are saying it may not have been a .22. So, what’s it to be, an imaginary gun that couldn’t have hurt anyone, or a .22 which could, or an assault weapon? Or was he was charged with reckless endangerment because he shot at a squirrel with a magical gun that only hurts squirrels? If he intended to hurt the squirrel then he was using a weapon which could have injured or killed an innocent child. Is that really so hard to wrap you’re head around? Don’t gun enthusiasts constantly remind us that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”? Well this particular person is responsible for firing a gun in an urban area, apparently with no concern or regard for the possible consequences.

        With rights come responsibilities:

        Don’t shout fire in a crowded cinema.

        Don’t fire guns in an urban area unless you can guarantee that it is safe to do so and there is no chance of accidental injury to anything other than your target (assuming you have a valid, legal target).

        It’s not that fucking hard, surely?

      • Bine646

        “Don’t fire guns in an urban area unless you can guarantee that it is safe to do so and there is no chance of accidental injury to anything other than your target (assuming you have a valid, legal target).”

        was anyone hurt? no. did he deem it safe? yup. did he hit his target? yup. do we know what weapon he used? no. what time is it in australia anyways?

      • Phil Keast

        Did he deem it safe? Of course he did, otherwise he wouldn’t have done it. Was it safe? NO. I find it incomprehensible that anyone could possibly consider discharging a firearm in an urban suburb is safe. It’s like running a red light during peak hour. Managing to get to the other side without being hit doesn’t mean its a good idea.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Was it safe? NO.”
        This is opinion. Do not construe this to mean I think it was a good idea.

      • Phil Keast

        Fair ’nuff, you may or may not think it was a good idea, and I respect you right to hold either position.

        Yes, it is an opinion. One which I believe that anyone with any training in the use of firearms would agree, whether their training be in law enforcement, military service, military reserve, park ranger, border security, or any other profession in which the effective and safe use of firearms is required. When handling a firearm you must always consider the possibility and consequences of missing your target. Anyone who believes they can’t miss is a fool.

        Does having this opinion mean I can’t be wrong, no. But it is an honestly held opinion which I feel passionately about, and will continue to hold long after this incident, and this discussion, has been long forgotten. I’ve seen what carelessly ignoring safety when dealing with firearms can do, and having seen that I believe that safety must always be the primary consideration whenever dealing with firearms.

      • Charles Vincent

        I concur. This whole thing is a complete nontroversy IMHO waste of reporting if thats what we are calling this piece. I would have used a snare to get the squirrel they make great fricassee.

      • Phil Keast

        Wild rabbit is excellent, though they are rare in an urban setting.

      • Wayne Langley

        I have seen quite a few cottontails in some unusual places the last few years, but I’m not going to shoot one to prove a point either.

      • Phil Keast

        Agreed. Those rabbits I shot were in rural settings where over-population was degrading the quality of grazing for the sheep on that property. Unfortunatley, more often than not the rabbit was inedible due to mixomatosis, but I have hunted, (if you can call sitting back against a tree having a chat then popping off a shot whenever a rabbit popped its head out of its burrow hunting) in areas with healthy rabbits. Lived off the land occasionally, there are times when a rifle is a survival tool. Urban settings don’t count (with respect to rodents, anyway. I’m not going to get into a debate over what constitutes a reasonable response to a threat, or for that matter what constitutes a threat).

      • Wayne Langley

        Used to go out with a spotlight at night in the winter to hunt them in the open fields. Most of them weren’t worth the effort to skin, clean, or eat. Just stopped after a while, and let them be.

  • Sue Suitina

    Risking your fellow humans to dispatch a tiny rodent? Uncalled for. Over kill. Not needed. STUPID. Do not breed.

    • Bine646

      The “assault” weapon was discovered in the home during a search, it wasnt used to exterminate the rodent. As for the “risk to fellow humans” its not like he had them lined up behind the squirrel. The article doesnt give the location, type of weapon used, etc. its simply an opinion piece on guns- so youre statements are ignorant

      • Peggy Richards

        the article showed a google earth photo of the area – suburban with close together houses, duh

      • Bine646

        I just saw the street view, feel bad for this man.

  • Sandy Greer

    I’m scared of this thread… 😉

    I used to post another site. Folks got ugly, accusing each other of Deleting posts, and being Sockpuppets.

    You never know ‘who’ it is. But one thing’s for certain: It’s probably not ‘who’ you think. And the ‘who’ laughs because we are so easily led into Straw Men arguments – of ‘who’ is the bad guy, causing all the trouble.

    Charles has ‘history’ here. I don’t understand him; not yet. But I think him a man of Honor – unafraid, to stand his own ground, under his own name. I am QUITE certain he has no need of ‘fake’ accts.

    He’s wrong about the sarcasm, tho. At least, WRT presenting our message. The subtleties of sarcasm are lost on the internet – best reserved for those who know, and understand, us.

    I can’t help but note the irony of one whose only posts are here – this thread – accusing Charles of being ‘fake’. We all had our own first few posts – but it’s an irony, to be sure.

    • Charles Vincent

      The real irony here is the accuser has posted under two profiles and thought I spoke directly to one they switched and to the other and accused me of libel for what I posted to the other profile. Thanks for the bump and vote of confidence. Could be a reverse troll of sorts i suppose.

      • Sandy Greer

        You’re welcome. You be sure to have a good day.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well the day is young I just wish I was as well haha. Good day to you as well.

  • John Franco

    Wow what an ignorant, bias, liberal story! I do occasionally like to read these silly articles just to get an idea of the sick media mindset, the one that would make them side with a socialist president over the rights of citizens.