On my way to work, there are a few side streets I can take should the roads back up a bit. My detour takes me through some neighborhoods you’re more likely to see in old episodes of Cops than Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.
A gentleman was walking his dog this morning, carrying an aluminum baseball bat. It was clear he wasn’t heading over to Jose Conseco’s house to practice and the way he was holding it at the low-ready indicated he intended to use it immediately if needed. As a bat, it was too short to act as a cane, and unless his dog was just extremely stubborn and needed ‘encouragement’ it was clear he meant it as a defensive weapon.
Regardless of what time of day you head through this neighborhood, you’ll see several prime examples of the species baggius pantus (including the ever so present subspecies aurum toofium) milling around. Baggius pantus are well known for their career choices as Wealth Redistribution Specialists and I understood why Mr. Dog Walker felt he may need to have a bat in case any of said associates decided to have an impromptu sales pitch.
What’s interesting to me is that there was no mistaking the bat’s use for anything other than a weapon. It was a clear sign that Mr. Dog Walker was saying “Leave me alone or I’ll bash in your head”. Hence, he was openly carrying. I support his right to do so and should he have wanted to protect himself with a knife, a sword, or a gun, I see no reason to deny him the right to use a more effective tool (while a bat makes a handy bludgeon, it still requires close distance and considerable strength to wield).
The anti’s out there would have preferred this man be at the mercy of of thugs and thieves than have a better chance.
Comments
It's very common here, probably 50% of the people who look like they are "out for a walk" have a stick of some sort. I have no idea how many are actually carrying a firearm, as open carry is legal but holstered pistols are a lot less visible while driving by than a 3 foot stick.
Kevin beat me to my answer. It's protection against other dogs, not people.
You think it's better to shoot dogs?
Notice how ubu52 wants to paint us as hating dogs so all the liberal PETA freaks can say how bad we are.
The comment makes it sound like our first, and only, response is to shoot Fido.
Sorry, if someone thinks they need to shoot an attacking dog, they need to be able to do so. Yelling, kicking, clubs and so on are not always effective. Some dogs (and other animals) will attack children and may even be rabid. Feral dogs are quite dangerous, especially in packs. So, I will not surrender my top spot in the pecking order just so their sensibilities to be placated.
Ubu
As for your " is it better to shoot dogs"? question.
The answer is " it all depends.
Adults must use good judgement in all things, or suffer the consequences; thats why they are " adults".
If the dog is attacking me, or mine, and he is a large or really agressive critter, then, yes. the circumstances warrant it. If the circumstances do not warrant it, hen the answer is "no".
The point is, I am an adult, and I want to the tools available if I need them.
If you choose to not have the tools - you are free to do that; I do not need your choices, however, to be imposed on me.
I guess thats why it is called " freedom". Perhaps you could study up on the concept?
Regards
GKT
Actually, I believe the Dog Walker is sending a slightly Different Message. He's telling the Misunderstood Youths "You see the Bat in my hands. What ELSE do I have on me that you DON'T see?"
The Smart Ones get the Message. The Dumb Ones get the Darwin Award.


What if he was doing it 'just to make a point'?! Oh no!