There is no room in hunting for those theories. We talk about those concepts in the context of doing continuous activities, such as driving a car around of a bunch of other people driving a bunch of other cars.
When you voluntarily, for sport, assume control of a weapon designed to kill you are assuming a higher standard of personal resposibility. One of those responsibilities is to be aware, at all times, of where every person or animal is who could possibly be in range of your weapon. For example, when you hunt ducks there are limits by species of duck - you can't just shoot a bird and hope it's permissible.
Also, unlike continuous activities, in hunting there is ALWAYS the option to NOT point your weapon or NOT pull the trigger, and always time to consider that choice. And if you DON'T know where one of your buddies is, or the "sun gets in your eyes" as asserted in this case (roll eyes here), then you exercise the option to wait until it's safe before pointing the gun or pulling the trigger. No exceptions.

Any distinction between driving and shooting eludes me. Both are choices.

[This message was edited by John Stride on 02-14-06 at .]

Actually read my last post. Maybe my prose is inartful, but I'm pretty sure I expressed that there is a distinction between hunting and driving, and why.

I'd like to know how to UN-post, like John did with the message about "equal vigor to driving". SHANNON, where is that button?

That said- John, if you really don't see a distinction between the concentration, skill, and responsibilities required when driving a car vs. firing a deadly weapon in a group of people... Please, for the sake of everyone who knows you, make sure you tell them that before they agree to be around you and a weapon... And you might want to see if your officers agree with your viewpoint while you're at it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neel McDonald:
I'd like to know how to UN-post ...

---

Click the edit icon, then select the "delete message" link on the upper right corner of the text box.

Should we be concerned? The shooting is really not that important in the context of everyday life. Dangerous drivers are however.

Most people fail to understand the dangers of driving. Every day they are driving a deadly weapon that can be far more devasting, and usually is so, than any shotgun-wielding hunter. And you don't get to choose who else drives with you on the road! No doubt shooting is an inherently dangerous sport and extraordinary care is required, but of much greater import than an elderly politician accidentally clipping a companion is the carnage on the roads every day.

Let's have the press focusing on something that really matters and without warping the truth for the sake of punchy headlines.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neel McDonald:
Wonder (maybe Boyd knows this) how many non-elected sportsmen in Texas get a warning when caught hunting or fishing without having paid the tax to get all the right stamps?

---

The usual practice of Texas game wardens when a new Class C fish/game law takes effect is to educate the public and issue verbal or written warnings for the first year. The upland game bird stamp stamp is a new requirement as of 9/1/05, so game wardens are in warning mode.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neel McDonald:
Also, unlike continuous activities, in hunting there is ALWAYS the option to NOT point your weapon or NOT pull the trigger, and always time to consider that choice. And if you DON'T know where one of your buddies is, or the "sun gets in your eyes" as asserted in this case (roll eyes here), then you exercise the option to wait until it's safe before pointing the gun or pulling the trigger. No exceptions.

---

So true.

If someone drives a car recklessly and injures someone that is a dangerous activity. However, if someone shoots a gun recklessly and injures a person with a possible life threatening injury because it is not a continuous activity is it okay? (we do not know what the long term effects of having this birdshot in his heart will be - may not be soon, but could it ultimately be the triggering effect of ending his life) I wonder if a car should be considered a deadly weapon per se under 1.07 similar to a firearm. I think the difference is when you take a "per se" deadly weapon into your hands the level of responsibility should be a little higher. A car is only a deadly weapon if you choose to use it in that manner. One who brags about their hunting skills should be willing to take the heat when he shoots someone accidently. As of yet we have heard nothing from the VP and the continuous making light of this event from the press corps is what is stirring most of the problems. Like it was said yesterday even though the white house press knew about the heart attack it chose to ignore it and not address the issue openly in a press conference a few hours later.

When one chooses public life one must know that their life is under scrutiny. We should look at this as it is - yes an accident, but let's not blame the victim. It still should be the responsibility of the person firing the gun to be careful and he must bear the burden of the most responsible party.

I agree with the premise that your reaction to the Affaire de Cheney says a lot about you. I first heard of the incident in the car on the radio. I nearly busted a gut, laughing.

Greenfield: A political Rorschach test
News about Cheney's hunting accident: Cover-up or overblown?
By Jeff Greenfield
CNN Senior Analyst

CNN) -- What did you see when you saw the story about Vice-President Cheney's hunting accident?

If you were a comedy writer, you saw definitive proof of the existence of God.

If you hold the Bush Administration in minimum high regard, you saw enough metaphors to power a Ph.D. thesis: a reckless, inept use of force directed at the wrong target, compounded by a cover-up.

If you support the administration, you saw the press in full hysteria, "going nuts" (as a FOX News personality put it), by pounding White House spokesman Scott McClellan on the 20-plus hour delay in making the news public.

If you were me, and you heard the news that a piece of birdshot lodged in the victim's heart, you heard -- OK, I heard -- an echo of a plotline I used in a novel a decade ago: the just-elected president dies after breaking his leg, when a tiny piece of bone marrow works its way into his bloodstream, causing a fatal embolism.(Cheney shooting victim suffers 'minor heart attack')

What's so striking, I think, is how a story like this becomes an instant Rorschach test, with political predispositions substituting for inkblots. We know the meaning of this incident because we know how we feel about the vice president, or the administration, or the war in Iraq, or the press -- and therefore, we know how to judge the event.

Look, I have never hunted in my life (assuming you don't count hunting for a parking place in Manhattan). I have no more knowledge of the rules that govern a quail hunt than I do about the topography of Neptune. But the same massive level of ignorance doesn't seem to be stopping a whole lot of people from explaining why the vice president was innocent, careless, criminally negligent, or homicidal. Similarly, it seems all but impossible to separate your judgment of the White House's response -- perfectly appropriate, sloppy, or an inexcusable attempt at cover-up -- from your broader view of the president.

There are plenty of grounds on which to make out a case against the vice president's performance in office; there are plenty of examples where his easy assurances -- about weapons of mass destruction, about the way the U.S. would be greeted in Iraq -- have turned out to be dramatically wrong-headed. But I'd prefer to see those arguments stand or fall on their merits. As for the comedy writers, they're exempt from any analysis, rigorous or otherwise. Some temptations are, literally, irresistible.

I guess Cheney finally admitted to what I believed all along - the person bearing the deadly weapon also bears the primary burden in an accidental shooting. Maybe if he hadn't acted like he bore no responsibility and let the story fester that it was really all the vitim's fault the media would not have been so hard on him. He hid behind the report of the rancher for almost 4 days acting so innocent. But he finally heard Britney Spears song and realized he is just not that innocent afterall.

Accidents usually have a cause and it is about time that he stepped up to the plate to take responsibility for his actions. Now that he has come forward I believe the media should leave him alone. Whether this accident should be pursued through investigation and presented to the grand jury is a tough call. But we must have faith in our legal system that the right call will be made.

Just to tip toe into the quail-mire, did any other prosecutors notice the conflicting reports on alcohol usage? Early on, Ms Armstrong strongly asserted that there had been no drinking by anyone before the shooting. She specified that no alcohol was served at their lunch and also said "no, zero, zippo" drinking had happened. Now Cheney divulges that he had "one beer" at lunch. Hmmmmmm. Haven't we all heard that one cerveza line and disbelieved it? The delayed contact with authorities conveniently prevented any unbiased determination that alcohol was not a factor.

Confession -- how true that this story IS a political Rorschach test. That's why, when I saw my friend Squire John's original post, I was far from shocked that he felt sorry for Cheney. On the flipside, I'll confess to chortling when I heard the news on Sunday -- I'm in the camp that believes that a close inspection of Cheney's head would expose three sixes emblazoned on his scalp!

Regardless of your personal leanings, though, how would you prosecutors feel about the differing stories regarding alcohol if Cheney had run over somebody? What if he'd plowed over a friend -- because the sun was in his eyes (eye rolling very appropriate here) and the guy hadn't announced himself (to everyone who was wearing ear muffs) as being in the way --- and then failed to contact the authorities for hours and hours. Hmmmm. Don't all the R-leaners instantly reply with the cite for mandatory tests when a MV is involved and FSRA issues -- I'm asking about your thoughts on the circumstances of this "situation." I'd also like to know if Whittington measured a BAC at the hospital hours later. And will they ever identify all five members of the hunting party? Lots of loose ends!

If you, too, are suffused with schadenfreude (I've boldly admitted it!), check out Comedy Central's site -- Duck and Cover & #2 with a Bullet are a scream!

Cheney has taken responsibility, and charges won't be filed. A terrible accident?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11392889/

Having been peppered with No. 8 and No. 6 a couple times, I don't see what the flap is all about.

John, I assume you are referring to your recent tour of duty before the Legislature?

Let's see now....Dick Cheney does not immediately alert the Washington press corps he is responsible for what is now officially an accidental shooting and said news dominates the headlines for four-five days. How , exactly, did the veep "cover-up" the event? Was the victim spirited away to some secret hospital in Romania? Nope, he was taken to the local hospital right there in Corpus. The Washington reporters appear to be upset because they were scooped on the story by the hicks at the local rag. I suppose Cheney's reporting timetable was lifted from the Ted Kennedy manual.

Meanwhile, Al Gore goes to the cradle of fanatical Wahabi Islam (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia) to pour gasoline on a raging fire and the NY Times has not yet seen fit to print a story on his speech. I guess the slogan is really "all the news that fits."



Gore laments U.S. 'abuses' against Arabs
By Jim Krane, Associated Press Writer | February 12, 2006

JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia --Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jiddah Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."

Gore told the largely Saudi audience, many of them educated at U.S. universities, that Arabs in the United States had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

"Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong," Gore said. "I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

quote:

---

Originally posted by BLeonard:
The Washington reporters appear to be upset because they were scooped on the story by the hicks at the ocal rag.

---

Ben hit the nail on the head. Did y'all see the way the WH press corps was acting after they got scooped? That initial press conference was an embarassment to journalism. I haven't seen that many temper tantrums since I scouted out potential day cares last month.

Now, if it had been Cheney that was shot and taken to the hospital, I can understand people being upset at a 12-hour delay in reporting from the White House -- that could have affected the running of the country. But I just cannot see how his involvement in this hunting accident is a matter of national importance, like some seem to believe.

Talk about your slow news days!

JB,that was more bs than birdshot.

Right, so being "peppered" is no big deal, happens alla time. Except that, while most of us who have bird hunted in a crowded field have had the experience of having pellets fall on or near us, I'd bet that anyone who holds the "no biggie" viewpoint is talking about being peppered by something with an arc on it...

The reason this one is so irksome in the way the handlers are portraying it, is that 28-guage is about as light a guage as you'd want to consider for quail hunting, and to carry the number of pellets they have described (the number I've heard hit the victim is around 50) would mean very light shot, like 8 or 9.

So, what does any of this mean or matter? It means that the stories being promoted by the "party" that the range was 30 yards (and I've even heard a couple of times someone say 90 !) is absolute bunk. For the number of shot to have stayed together tightly enough to have hit the vic 50 times (or even 1/3 of that) and penetrated deeply enough to hit his HEART, I'm seriously wondering if the guy has Yosimite-Sam-like stippling on his face, and a Winchester logo on his forehead from the wad.

That is, of course, unless the party was hunting with ultra-long barrels and full chokes so as to facilitate the intermittent game of duck-duck-goose.