When the Legislature passed Wisconsin's concealed carry law nearly two years ago, the main argument for it was that good guys needed to carry guns to stop the bad guys. 

So what to make of a road-rage incident where two concealed carry permit holders engage in a wild west-style shootout as they sped down a Milwaukee freeway? There has to be a bad guy, right?

Eric Adamany, 27, was charged with first-degree reckless endangerment in the June 26 incident, during which he allegedly emptied a magazine at a fleeing motorist. No one was hurt.

But Adamany says the other guy, 27-year-old Roy Scott, shot first.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that Adamany told the cops that Scott "mean mugged" him and flashed a black handgun, prompting him to flash his own.

The driver sped away, with Admany in pursuit firing away while Scott squeezed off rounds toward the pursuing vehicle from the car window, holding the gun over his shoulder with his right hand while steering with his left. The chase ended when Adamany shot out all four tires of the fleeing car and both shooters contacted a couple of the many officers who had saturated the area.

Adamany subsequently told TMJ4 in Milwaukee that the other driver pulled up and fired a bullet into his sideview mirror, which started the running gun battle. He said he picked up his gun and pursued the attacker because Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke recently urged citizens to arm themselves against criminals.

"Sheriff Clarke said to stand up for ourselves, we're a team," he told TMJ4. "I was trying to be a team player and provide the information and get law enforcement on scene."

Nik Clark, president of the gun rights group Wisconsin Carry Inc., told the Journal Sentinel that both Adamany's and Scott's gunplay was irresponsible, but that was offset by at least five instances in which permit holders stopped a crime or saved a life.

But the Journal Sentinel reported that in another recent case, concealed carry permit holder Phillip Green, 40, was charged with first-degree reckless homicide after killing Ernest Banks after the two men, who were bar hopping together last May, got into a fight.

Steven Elbow joined The Capital Times in 1999 and has covered law enforcement in addition to city, county and state government. He has also worked for the Portage Daily Register and has written for the Isthmus weekly newspaper in Madison.

You might also like

(64) comments

ClearHeaded
ClearHeaded

Everyone realizes that this story is an editorial? No way anyone could consider this an actual news story, would you?

bluffsinview
bluffsinview

How many hours of hands-on drivers training does one need to get a driver's license? How many hours of hands-on training does one need to get a permit to carry a lethal weapon, and what kind of test do they take? Do they have to practice loading and unloading a gun? Do they have to prove they have a place to store it safely away from children and others? Silly people comment on Chicago violence, totally ignoring the fact that it's easy to bring guns across the borders. If we had universal background checks and sufficient training the rates of homicides and injuries would go way down. But the NRA is paying legislators to loosen restrictions. They love the funding they get from ammo and gun manufacturers. What do they care who dies?

mister jingles
mister jingles

One is a privilege, one is a right. Big difference. However, since that answer isn't usually liked, how about a couple other points for your consideration...

1. Why the double standard between what is required for law enforcement officers and private citizens? Go read the WiDOJ Handgun Qualification Minimum Requirements. Law enforcement officers are not required by law to have any special training to use their handguns. It's recommended, but all that's required is that they pass a minimum set of requirements (which, for even a moderately experienced shooter are pretty laughable). I'm not talking about what is actually done, what is recommended or anything else like that, I'm talking about what is REQUIRED, according to the WiDOJ, for law enforcement officers to carry handguns. If it's not required for them, and they are potentially in life and death situations every day, why should it be required for a private citizen who is rarely in such a situation? Especially since their mission is supposed to be to engage and stop a crime, whereas a citizen carrying concealed's mission is solely supposed to be to get themselves and those in their care out of danger.

2. Drunk driving kills more people each year than handguns do. In 2011 there were 10,228 deaths due to drunk driving...at the same time, there were 6,220 deaths due to homicide by handgun, of which 452 of those were "justified homicides" (police shootings, legitimate cases of self defense, etc). Leaving 5,768 non-justified homicides committed with a handgun (the type of firearm typically carried concealed). Your comparison isn't looking so hot...and I can make it worse. Roughly 75% of firearms homicides over the past 40 years, based on many studies conducted at state and federal levels, are committed by people with prior criminal records - people who likely can't legally own a firearm in the first place. That leaves roughly 1,442 non-justified homicides committed in 2011 by legal handgun owners...or about 1/7 of the number of people killed by drunk drivers.

Let me put it another way:
- Your chances of being killed by a drunk driver - about 1 in 30,000.
- Your chances of being killed by a legal handgun owner - about 1 in 216,000.

I'll take my chances with the legal handgun owners.

3. There are many, many, many studies you can find that show that persons who are legal concealed carry permit holders are among the least likely to commit violent crimes. For example, in a story released in 2012, the state of Kansas found that since they legalized concealed carry in 2007 they've issued 51,078 permits...of those permit holders only 44 were charged with committing a crime while using a firearm...roughly 1 out of ever 1,161 permit holders. Overall, the violent crime rate in Kansas was 3.4 per 1,000 people 2011...the violent crime rate for concealed carry permit holders in 2011 was less than 1 per 1,000 people.

4. So are you trying to say that all the Chicago gun violence is being bused in from out of state by NRA and firearms supporters? 'Cause that's kinda what it sounds like you're implying.

Cowboy99540
Cowboy99540

Dear Readers:

I would like to get an accurate demographic and psychological portrait of those applying for and carrying concealed weapons in this state.

Secondly, with the severe shortage of resources actually going to law enforcement to fight crime (thanks to the republicans in our legislature) how is it possible for hard strapped sheriff departments, "statewide", to check the criminal histories of so many permit applicants?

Did the actual permit holder receive any special advanced training to be able to competently use a gun in a high stress situation where one might only have a few seconds to make a decision?

Finally, this latest incident on a busy Milwaukee County freeway only serves to demonstrate how a lot of people exercise bad judgement while under extreme stress in making bad decisions.

the truth is that It takes many hours of professional firearms training to competently prepare law enforcement personnel to be able to respond with potential deadly force and even they get it wrong sometimes.

I'm a former law enforcement officer that's been out of law enforcement for nearly three decades and do not ever carry a gun.

To date, I haven't applied for a C&C permit either or do I ever intend to do so, because I don't feel that it is necessary for me to carry a gun. So yes, I wonder why so many well off professional people who have good lives and every possible advantage in life want to be able to be thrust into a dangerous position where they might have to kill another human-being?

What is the real honest and truthfully accurate profile that actually fits a person like that? I also wonder how many of them vied for military service when and if they ever faced the prospect of going into a combat zone?

Cowboy

AllAmerican11B
AllAmerican11B

Cowboy99540,
"I would like to get an accurate demographic and psychological portrait of those applying for and carrying concealed weapons in this state."

Other than for law enforcement purposes, it is none of yours or anyone else's damn business who is carrying concealed weapons in this or any other state! You're an former law enforcement officer and you sit there and try to USE them as some kind of an excuse in regards to personnel and criminal background checks, really; there is NO EXCUSE for not performing criminal background checks when they are suppose to. Whether an individual has got military service or whether they have served in a combat zone it's irrelevant, that should NOT deny non-military people from this.

P.S. I completely agree that concealed carriers should have additional firearms training, sitting in a classroom learning the laws and doing paperwork is NOT enough for concealed carry. Concealed carry is a method of carrying that should require situational hands-on training and additional firearm handling training.

mister jingles
mister jingles

Cowboy, you stated, "the truth is that It takes many hours of professional firearms training to competently prepare law enforcement personnel to be able to respond with potential deadly force and even they get it wrong sometimes."

Sadly, yet not unexpectedly, the truth is very different.

The following excerpt is from the Sept 2012 version of the Wisconsin Department of Justice's Handgun Qualification Standard: Minimum Certification Standard
for Wisconsin LEOs and Former Officers...

"This qualification course is limited in scope. This course merely evaluates an officer’s ability to perform basic psychomotor skills in a controlled setting, testing whether an officer can accurately operate a handgun in a low-stress environment. This course does not indicate whether officers have received recent, relevant, and realistic training necessary to perform their job. It does not train or test an officer’s ability to perform psychomotor skills in a rapidly-evolving, dynamic, and realistic work environment.

Thus, this qualification course should be viewed as a stepping stone. While it documents minimal competency in handgun operation, this course does not evaluate whether an officer can recognize pre-assault indicators, select and implement appropriate tactics, or determine what level of force—if any—is appropriate. It does not evaluate one-handed reloads, drawing with the reaction hand, drawing and shooting from a seated position, low-light or flashlight-assisted shooting, multiple assailants,shooting while moving, shooting at moving targets, etc."

Now, to be fair, this WiDOJ document does *recommend* that Law Enforcement Agencies provide their offices with additional training, but there is no *requirement* in the law to do so, so far as this document indicates. If there is a law that requires Law Enforcement Officers to have additional training, please let me know. I'd be interested in reading it.

I'm not saying anyone who is licensed to carry a concealed weapon shouldn't have additional training, I'm just pointing out that there is no *requirement* that law enforcement officers have any additional training (and it's disingenuous for you to imply there is) beyond what the WiDOJ has established as the minimum standards. And even those, I'm not sure qualify as *laws*. As for those standards, after reviewing them, I'm fairly certain I could easily qualify. (Very easily.)

As for your last bit, the subtle dig about military service...I wasn't aware that one had to serve in the military to enjoy all the Rights provided in our Constitution, Bill of Rights and the rest of the Amendments. If we haven't served in the military, what other rights do we forfeit? Aside from our Second Amendment Rights, I mean? Free Speech? Freedom of Religion? Peaceably Assemble? Freedom of the Press? Right to Vote? The Fourth Amendment? Please, tell us what other rights we aren't entitled to if we haven't served?

It amazes me, in a sad sort of way, how most liberals/democrats/progressives will defend every Right provided to us in the Constitution and all its Amendments EXCEPT the Second Amendment. The Founders were right on about all the rest, but they were apparently falling down drunk when the came up with the Second, I guess.

And again, in case you missed it in some other posts of mine - I'm a liberal, I'm not angry, I'm not afraid...and I carry. Take from that what you will for your "accurate demographic and psychological portrait" of me.

Dode
Dode

Those two were apparently products of our public schools, if they went to school at all. They were just doing what Present 0bama told them to do: “I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities." So they listened to Zero and took their gunfight to the freeway. Just another typical gangbanger day in Milwaukee and Madistan.

Maji2
Maji2

The people in power who put this insanity into law has brought a lot of bad press for
Wisconsin here in Japan where this Dane County native resides, and I cannot in good
conscience recommend travel there with people able to carry a loaded weapon into a bar!
People wake up!

Wustenratte
Wustenratte

I was considering Milwaukee as a place to retire to because it was far away from Florida. Evidently it is not far enough. At least no one can accuse Adamany of poor marksmanship. And now there are probably two less active concealed carry permits in Wisconsin.

ghost
ghost

We require a trans-vaginal ultrasound before we let a woman get an abortion but we don't require a psychological screening before we give someone a concealed carry permit.

mister jingles
mister jingles

so two wrongs now make a right?

(note, i'm implying the abortion crap they just passed is wrong (which it is).)

Comment deleted.
Comment deleted.
DriveThru
DriveThru

Hmmm, talk about "gross hypocrisy" when you and the other republicans started a war in Iraq, based on lies, that has killed over a million Iraqis, almost half women and children. You have a very selective consciousness, like most republicans.

DriveThru
DriveThru

Walker has finally unveiled his jobs program: arm all the angry white guys, then build more hospitals and staff them to treat all the gun shot victims. Maybe he'll remove all the stop signs from the streets soon--those pesky regulations again--to make jobs for body repair techs and surgeons and morticians. Go republicans!

DriveThru
DriveThru

This is what happens when fanatics control the laws and legislature. The only people who feel they need to carry a gun are already angry. Throw in a little road rage and voila, crazy mad shootout.

mister jingles
mister jingles

"The only people who feel they need to carry a gun are already angry."

Weird...I carry and I'm not angry. Or afraid. Or a republican.

epic
epic

If this is the extent of illicit use of guns in a two-year period, I'd say the sky is not falling. I worry a bit more about all the folks without CC permits that routinely rob, rape, and otherwise make people's lives miserable. I don't have a gun and I don't have a CC permit but I don't begrudge those that feel they need that protection.

The old saying that the police are minutes away when seconds count is still relevant. If you don't understand that concept please refer to the Brittany Zimmerman case (not to be confused with the other Zimmerman who was attacked).

pikerover
pikerover

Get it right epic ..... GZ started it

Wis_taxpayer
Wis_taxpayer

Thank goodness the NAACP has embraced the Republicans argument on second amendment rights, and is giving away free hand guns to all it's members!

commonsense7474
commonsense7474

Shooting from a car while driving. Perhaps this can become the new Wisconsin biathlon.

David Blaska
David Blaska

At last! The concealed carry opponents have their "sky is falling" moment! Why, this minor incident is PROOF that concealed carry doesn't work! Oh the humanity!

everclear
everclear

David Blaska This is not a minor incident. Just because he missed his target, those bullets still go somewhere and people could have been killed. If one of your kids was killed while riding in the family car would you still call it a minor incident?

AllAmerican11B
AllAmerican11B

I agree.

Harriet
Harriet

Me too.

S54k
S54k

Just remember, these two conceal carrying gun toters received the necessary training, so they knew what they were doing. The public was never in any danger. YEAH, RIGHT!!! Just be thankful they weren't carrying AK-47s!

beanlynch
beanlynch

Blaska likes to throw around the term "recovering liberal", as if that gives him him some authority on liberalism. What that really means is angry white male boomer who will take any position that is in opposition to Madison's left because they're bitter because being a liberal didn't score them any points with Madison's feminists. Madison does have it's hipocricy, especially on issues like Father's Rights. But that doesn't mean that flipping ot the other side make more sense. There is no room for nuance. It's just not possible for the "anti-liberals" to have an independent thought or concern about issues like guns. It's just another blow hard talking head craving attention. Ignore him, that's what he's afraid of the most!

DriveThru
DriveThru

Concealed carry was never intended "to work." Its purpose is to sell guns and make even bigger profits; dead people are obviously of little consequence to the corporate predator state.

Bender
Bender

If all the gun loonies would just kill each other it would put an end to this foolishness. Unfortunately they also gun down unarmed teenagers,

usmcproud
usmcproud

you are precious Bender, gun loonies could kill each other, wouldn't bother me. The good guys with guns are not the problem. You don't like guns? don't own one! Your comment, unfortunately they also gun down unarmed teenagers? I assume you are talking about Zimmerman. He had his day in court, the jury spoke, he is free of the charges. Deal with it. Gunning down is setting out to shoot someone, this he did not do, that is evident. Stop the crying.

Rosalie
Rosalie

i just hope that everyone dismayed by this will get out and vote at every upcoming election until we get some legislators not so susceptible to the pro-gun lobby.

Lynne4300
Lynne4300

Was one a felon, not legally allowed to have a gun?

Crow Barr
Crow Barr

Was one a woman that needs a "scan?" Did either sign the scatty recall? Was one Tomtom33, he's not been heard from?? So many questions, so few answers.

Lynne--Is scatty in his office today, take a peak down the hall, would ya?

Indefinite_detention
Indefinite_detention

Multiple class A+B misdemeanors. A proven track record of poor judgement.

array1
array1

If so then even more reason for better gun control.

usmcproud
usmcproud

If he was a felon, he wouldn't have had the concealed carry permit. More gun control? Just look at chicago, duhhhhh! Misdemeanors don't dis-allow permits. You people really need to get over the fact that we have the right to own and carry. If you ever need one of us to be the one to protect you while needing to protect ourselves also in the time of need and we don't, you will be the first ones to claim that we didn't do everything necessary to protect you. Say you won't do this, but you will. You can count on me for protection though, i wouldn't hesitate. The only gun control i need is to hit where i am aiming in the event i have to use deadly force. Good Day.

stevefb
stevefb

Some gun owners fancy themselves to be Matt Dillion even though they're way dumber than Festus.

bdholmes
bdholmes

Gun nuts...what can't they do?

Acapitalidea
Acapitalidea

I think toll booths and speed bumps are the answer. That's what we'd do in Madison. Firing pistols at such high speeds is dangerous. There will be a lot more of this going on. It's important we find out how many of these responsible law-abiding cowboys are members of the NRA. The NRA will turn this into a good thing - maybe given the winner of the shoot-out a badge or a free year's membership.

amigay
amigay

You guys are really late to the party about this. We here in South Florida had this kind of stuff 30 years ago right after the Mariel Boatlift.

920Annie
920Annie

Let the games begin!!!! Did you really expect this not to happen????

Steve_R
Steve_R

Brainless gun loonies...it's just lucky that no one innocently got in their way.

calme
calme

"'Sheriff Clarke said to stand up for ourselves, we're a team,' he told TMJ4. 'I was trying to be a team player and provide the information and get law enforcement on scene.'"

The idiots running our state wanted this to be possible. Arming more people and enticing them to use lethal force with fear tactics and rhetoric from public officials will bring nothing but more violence. People like the buffoon quoted above now have the legal authority to carry a weapon almost anywhere while maintaining the mentality they are part of "a team" of untrained citizen vigilantly police out to "stop crime" with a spray of bullets whenever possible. It’s cute to have the simpleton’s “good guys vs. bad guys” view of the world, but the reality is most people that commit acts of violence don’t leave the house in the morning planning to do so. Just like the guys in this article, we are human and we all lose our heads from time to time. All it takes is a human with a low EQ to turn from citizen to criminal in a fit of anger. Give them a gun and it simply makes it easier to cause harm.

…And then there’s this gem:
“Nik Clark, president of the gun rights group Wisconsin Carry Inc., told the Journal Sentinel that both Adamany's and Scott's gunplay was irresponsible, but that was offset by at least five instances in which permit holders stopped a crime or saved a life.”

One response to anybody wanting to defend this law: cite these instances.

To all the people that voted for those currently in power, remember, you reap what you sow. Welcome to the new Wisconsin.

calme
calme

correction: ingrained

NotACynic
NotACynic

The word is 'vigilante.'

nephilim
nephilim

little brains make for dumb answers huh Dik Clark.. Really, this one incident is overshadowed by "at least 5 instances" that no example was provided for? And I would guess you'd be stretching for an example too huh Mr Clark? "Oh well this vicious squirrel was going to attack me, and I shot it to save my life" we are lucky no one was killed during this. Yet another example of little boys who never grew up that need to shoot people because they are too afraid to handle their problem up close where they might get beat up like they did every day in high school. have a good time in jail clowns.. you'll return to the bullies that took your lunch money.. Except now they want to take your virginity, enjoy..

classicagain
classicagain

Nenut. I have seen people that have protected themselves also. Of course most of the liberal media in this area hides those stories. Maybe do a little research and not count on the funny pages known as the cap times for you info.

AllAmerican11B
AllAmerican11B

There was absolutely NOTHING about what either one of them did that was correct. They should throw the damn book at BOTH of them for their reckless and illegal actions. What a couple of freaking idiots!!!!!!!

This is a bad stain on Concealed Carry, but it does not negate the need for the law.

calme
calme

...And what need is that? To "defend against criminals" or to be the "good guy with a gun" ready to dole out vigilantly justice?

If your answer is “Yes”, let me be the first to tell you the oversimplified view of the world you are using to justify the “need” for this law is not based in reality
.
Like most people that commit gun crimes, neither of these idiots got into their cars thinking “I’m going to find someone to fire a few rounds at while I’m driving.” They weren’t criminals when they left their house, but at least one of them became a criminal as a result of a fit of anger. Humans get mad, and when humans get mad they had engrained tendencies to consider violence as a solution to their anger. Like I said in a previous comment, all it takes is a human with a low EQ to get mad to flip the switch from citizen to criminal. Give them an easier access to address that anger with a gun, and the likelihood of bullets flying increases exponentially.

Welcome to the new Wisconsin.

patricko
patricko

Is that supposed to IQ or is EQ something else?

You are correct when you point out that people can loose their tempers. I don't know that would agree about "ingrained tendencies to violence" in humans, but you seem to be concluding that humans should not have guns period. And THAT might also be true, but unfortunately, whether or not you believe in "good guys" with guns, the bad guys already have them and are not giving them up. So choose to not arm yourself if you wish, but as long as the bad guys have guns, I want the right to carry one as well.

AllAmerican11B
AllAmerican11B

calme,
Let me be the first to tell you the oversimplified view of the world you are using to smear the need for the law is not based in reality.

calme
calme

I beg to differ, "AllAmerican." I have dozens upon dozens of studies that support my position increased access to guns increases violence, often among those with no previous record of violent tendencies. If you would like, I would be happy to compile a list for you (or you can Google gun violence statistics as a proportion of gun ownership).

What factual information do you have to support your rudimentary "good guys vs. bad guys" perspective that you claim justifies the "need" for this law?

calme
calme

correction: ingrained

patricko
patricko

I'm feeling a little cheated about this. You see, the the two carloads of gangsters that had a shootout in front of my Madison home on the southwest side, most definitely didn't have concealed carry permits. So I think I can surmise that their gun safety habits might not have been what one would hope for in terms of people shooting it out in front of your house, (to say nothing of their marksmanship!) So as far as I'm concerned, i'd prefer an orderly shootout, executed by better trained psycho shooters, like they have in Milwaukee.

Cornelius Gotchberg
Cornelius Gotchberg

@patricko;

Former Mayor BikeShorts claimed SW side violence is 'anecdotal.'

Isthmus rag Editor/Maple Bluff denizen Ruth Conniff claimed SW side violence is "an illusion."

Neither would take an 'unescorted' walk on Hammersley, Theresa, Prairie, Loreen, etc. when invited.

Who to believe...

@RunningBear;

Don't forget to properly lead your target and account for wind speed interference.

The Gotch

RunningBear
RunningBear

People! We covered this in the training. When shooting your gun from a moving vehicle, steer with your knees and use your free arm to steady your shot. Get it right!

BTW, where was the "hero" permit holder who should have shot BOTH these guys in the head? Where is he when he's needed? Huh?

jackjones
jackjones

Just what the NRA wanted when they asked you to vote for Republicans- more guys with teeny weenies trying to prove their manliness with a firearm!

RayGunn
RayGunn

Yes, yes, never mind the thousands of drive-bys that were committed in years past. 2 CCW holders act like idiots and all of the sudden the world is so much more dangerous now. Yes, 2 idiots out of what... >180,000 permit holders? If only the general population had a rate of criminalization of .001%.

patricko
patricko

Yes, CC opponents have been hoping for this ever since it was passed. Of course thousands of shootings have happened since then in Wisconsin, but those guys lacked the credentials (CC permit) to "prove" it was a mistake. Those other shootings?? What other shootings?

ThreadKiller
ThreadKiller

Not really. Most of the time the media doesn't report the status of the gun bearers. Since George Zimmerman put on such a nice show, now the media may feel obliged for a little while to share what it knows about the shootings with the rest of us - much to the chagrin of the NRA, I might add.

ThreadKiller
ThreadKiller

I'm encouraging my braver African American and Hispanic friends to begin open carrying whenever and wherever possible. It's the only way the gun laws will change back the way they used to be. Ask Nancy Reagan about that law that Ronnie had to have changed in Cali when he was governor.

koala
koala

ANYONE shooting a gun on a freeway is endangering the lives of dozens of people, and should be put in the clink for a very long time. Don't apologize ... just acknowledge what is the right thing to do, and that concealed carry didn't work out very well here.

mister jingles
mister jingles

Exactly, RayGunn.

It's sorta like how we need to ban "assault rifles"...even though more people are killed each year with shotguns and hunting rifles (each, not combined) than are killed with "assault rifles". More than 3 times as many people were killed in 2011 (last year I could find data for) with hunting rifles than were killed with "assault rifles", and more than 5 times as many people were killed in 2011 with shotguns than were killed with "assault rifles".

By comparison...in 2011, when compared to homicides committed with "assault rifles" there were...
- more than 24 times as many homicides were committed with knives/cutting instruments
- more than 10 times as many homicides were committed with hands/feet/etc
- more than 7 times as many homicides were committed with bats/clubs/hammer/blunt objects
- roughly the same (although a bit more) number of homicides were committed by asphyxiation, strangulation and fire (each, not combined)

As an aside, even though I'm obviously very pro-gun, I think what these two idiots did in Milwaukee was wrong, and they should both be charged with whatever they can be charged with.

As RayGunn alluded to, .001% of CCW holders is not the "wild west shootout" that the left predicted with the passage of concealed carry in Wisconsin...nor will it become so.

michaelmcda
michaelmcda

Um, so, now I may stand my ground and fire away at 70 miles an hour on urban interstates legally? Excellent progress folks.

amigay
amigay

Hey, not to worry...texting while driving is illegal but you can fire a gun over your shoulder while driving with one hand and that's cool.

Barb10242
Barb10242

So it's a worse penalty if I "shoot him a text" than if I shoot him?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Exchange ideas and opinions on posted articles. Don't promote products or services, impersonate other site users, register multiple accounts, threaten or harass others, post vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language. Don't post content that defames or degrades anyone. Don't repost copyrighted material; link to it. In other words, stick to the topic and play nice. Report abuses by clicking the button. Users who break the rules will be banned from commenting. We no longer issue warnings. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.