# Vice President Dick Cheney Shoots Hunting Colleague



## michaeledward (Feb 12, 2006)

Breaking news that the Vice President unloaded a shotgun full of bird shot into a fellow hunter. 

Maybe this should be posted in the Study ..... 

The other hunter is reportedly conscious and aware. 

The Vice President should be denied a hunting license for the rest of his life.


----------



## Lisa (Feb 12, 2006)

do you have a link to the story?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 12, 2006)

I imagine by now, every news site in the country has the same AP story. 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHENEY_HUNTING_ACCIDENT?SITE=MOSPL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&SECTION=HOME

The Vice President should also be prohibited from Hunting on private property for the rest of his life, as was apparently the case here.


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 12, 2006)

Sheesh, some people are a bit too quick to pull the trigger, and I don't mean the VP.  If I read the news reports correctly, here's what happened:

1) The lawyer nailed a bird, went to retrieve it. 

2) Cheney and his friend saw another group of birds and shot one. 

3) The lawyer who got shot did not make his whereabouts known to Cheney his friend.  The fault would lie with the shootee, not the shooter.  

If anything, this is from CNN:



> Whittington shot a bird and went to look for it in the tall grass, while Cheney and the third hunter walked to another spot and found a second covey.
> 
> Whittington "came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn't signal them or indicate to them or announce himself," Armstrong told the Associated Press in an interview.


----------



## mrhnau (Feb 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The Vice President should also be prohibited from Hunting on private property for the rest of his life, as was apparently the case here.



Lets see what the laws say first, shouldn't we? In cases like this that happen (somewhat infrequently, but it happens), what is the common outcome? What laws were broken? What prosecution does the law allow? The guy suing? No death occured, so lets just relax, and make sure proper laws and procedures are followed.

I do wish him a speedy recovery. God speed!


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 12, 2006)

Grenadier said:
			
		

> 3) The lawyer who got shot did not make his whereabouts known to Cheney his friend. The fault would lie with the shootee, not the shooter.


 
Oh, Please.


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Oh, Please.


 
No.  It is the responsibility of hunter to announce, or at least alert others that he is harvesting the shot game.  That is the of the most important things they stress in hunter's education.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 12, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Lets see what the laws say first, shouldn't we? In cases like this that happen (somewhat infrequently, but it happens), what is the common outcome? What laws were broken? What prosecution does the law allow? The guy suing? No death occured, so lets just relax, and make sure proper laws and procedures are followed.
> 
> I do wish him a speedy recovery. God speed!


 
As they are on private property, there is quite likely no laws broken. 

How many people does one get to shoot before the privilege of hunting is revoked?


----------



## mrhnau (Feb 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Oh, Please.



Have you hunted Micheal?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 12, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Have you hunted Micheal?


 
No.


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> As they are on private property, there is quite likely no laws broken.
> 
> How many people does one get to shoot before the privilege of hunting is revoked?


 

I encourage you to read up on how hunting works.  If you down a bird, it is your responsibility to make your whereabouts known to others while retrieving it.  You don't just walk behind someone unannounced, especially if you're in an obscured area.   

It's an accident, plain and simple, and the fault is not with Cheney.  Nothing "criminal" was done in any way, shape, or form, by Cheney.  

In the meantime, may Mr. Whittington make a speedy and full recovery.  It was birdshot from a fair distance, so the odds of both a speedy and full recovery happening are quite good.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 12, 2006)

I have made no claim that laws have been broken, nor that a crime committed. Yes, it is an accident. However, to claim that the hunter was not at fault for being aware of what was in front of the barrel of his weapon is ridiculous on its face.


----------



## mrhnau (Feb 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I have made no claim that laws have been broken, nor that a crime committed. Yes, it is an accident. However, to claim that the hunter was not at fault for being aware of what was in front of the barrel of his weapon is ridiculous on its face.



Quail tend to hang out in brush. In my area, the brush tends to be quite large. A grown man can easily be obscured behind such brush. This is why a hunter announces his presence, since he can not be easily seen. Its not "ridiculous on its face".


----------



## terryl965 (Feb 12, 2006)

Well he was probaly frustated with the president and just got off a little of his frustation, that is all.
terry


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 12, 2006)

If it is not ridiculous on its face, I repeat an earlier question; "How many people do you get to shoot before you lose the privilege of hunting?"

Or, as one hunter put it ... "If you pull the trigger, it ain't no accident."


----------



## mrhnau (Feb 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I have made no claim that laws have been broken, nor that a crime committed. Yes, it is an accident. However, to claim that the hunter was not at fault for being aware of what was in front of the barrel of his weapon is ridiculous on its face.





> The Vice President should also be prohibited from Hunting on private property for the rest of his life, as was apparently the case here.



So, if no law was broken, then why should be have his huntint licence revoked? and not allowed to hunt on public property?

Lets look at different example.

Consider you get in a car wreck, and someone is injured. Would you claim they should never drive? Would you claim they can't ever get a licence again? If no crime was committed, what would be your justification for such action? Car accidents happen all the time. Shoud every person  deemed "at fault" have their licence revoked?

No, lets look at it from another angle. Would you recommend someone who used a car to run someone down and commit murder have their licence revoked? how about killing someone who kills someone while drunk driving? I'd understand someone recommending  a revokation at a blatant law violation, but not an accident


----------



## mrhnau (Feb 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> If it is not ridiculous on its face, I repeat an earlier question; "How many people do you get to shoot before you lose the privilege of hunting?"
> 
> Or, as one hunter put it ... "If you pull the trigger, it ain't no accident."


How many car accidents before you lose your licence?


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Feb 12, 2006)

I'll reserve judgment on this until there is more information available. First reports often contain grave errors in fact. It's possible, or even probable, that this is a "mutual mistake" type situation. Accidents do happen. BTW, I personally dislike this admin. - but I don't think it's right to jump to premature conclusions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 12, 2006)

Accidents happen.  Accidents with firearms are often deadly.  This is why a discipline approach to hunting and a strict adherence to the rules was taught to me and my four brothers, by my father, whenever we went out.  There were two big mistakes here.  The lawyer failed to announce himself and the VP wasn't aware enough of his firing lines.  No quail is worth being unsafe and no amount of inattention is worth your life.   The fact that the VP was involved in an accident isn't so much of an issue, IMO.  Practicing good gun safety is the moral of this story, IMO.


----------



## Lisa (Feb 12, 2006)

I believe both men are at fault.  It is the responsibility of every hunter to make his whereabouts known and also the responsibility of every hunter to make sure the path they are shooting down is clear.  That is why Hunter Safety courses are so important and probably should be retaken every few years before licenses are given out.  Just my two cents.


----------



## lonecoyote (Feb 12, 2006)

One reason the guy was doing so well is that he got promtp care,  there are always doctors and an ambulance close by Cheney, in case his ticker needs a jump start. That's not a joke either.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 12, 2006)

I believe any hunter that accidently shoots another hunter in the field should have the privilege revoked. 

New reports are informing us it was bird shot at 30 yards, both hunters were wearing hunter orange.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Feb 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I believe any hunter that accidently shoots another hunter in the field should have the privilege revoked.
> 
> New reports are informing us it was bird shot at 30 yards, both hunters were wearing hunter orange.


 
By your own admission, you have never been hunting. It is always possible for the non-hunter to do something darn stupid that gets themselves shot.


----------



## dubljay (Feb 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> 1)  I believe any hunter that accidently shoots another hunter in the field should have the privilege revoked.
> 
> 2)New reports are informing us it was bird shot at 30 yards, both hunters were wearing hunter orange.



1)  If two people run a red light and hit eachother who is at fault? Clearly it was an accident.. if Cheney had wanted the man dead he has the CIA for that .  If a member of your party strays off without giving proper notice how do you know where that person is? By the same token you don't start shooting when a member of your party is not accounted for.

2)  30 yards of underbrush.. it makes no difference what color the man was wearing theres no way he could be seen.  Same if he stooped down in wasit high grass.  Perhaps the orange color was covered temporarly while he was placing the game in a bag?  Also when tracking a fast moving target are you really going to see the orange color?  I highly doubt it.


There is far too little information to make a judgement on this.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 12, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> By your own admission, you have never been hunting. It is always possible for the non-hunter to do something darn stupid that gets themselves shot.


 
I am not a hunter because I am strongly opposed to guns. 

Many years ago, I was in upstate Vermont when fishing in my canoe during bird season. Hearing the report from my boat was enough for me to be very aware of the dangers in the wilderness during hunting season. You will note my avatar is a fish, just prior to my releasing it. I am a very passionate outdoors person. 

So, while non-hunters, such as hikers and fisherman need to take care in the outdoors during hunting season, the person with the firearm in their hands has 'ultimate responsibility'. The phrase 'ultimate responsibility' is one that I intensly dislike, because in almost all cases, responsibility is shared by all parties involved. 

I do not excuse the accident of the man who was shot, but it was not his actions that got him shot. It was Richard Cheney who pulled the trigger.

Here is the link to Texas Hunter Safety Rules. Rules 3 and 6 are relevant, I believe.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=496607


----------



## Martial Tucker (Feb 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> If it is not ridiculous on its face, I repeat an earlier question; "How many people do you get to shoot before you lose the privilege of hunting?"



Similarly, how many people do you have to murder, or children do you have to molest before they quit paroling you? How many times do you have to be arrested for DUI before they lock you up? There are WAY more stories of this nature in the news DAILY. I don't see you railing against those offenders. 
Clinton hit a guy with a golf ball once. I guess he should be BANISHED from all golf courses for the rest of his life. 

It was an accident, and I'm willing to bet serious money if it had been Kerry or Lieberman pulling the trigger, you'd have thought nothing about it. 
If you can't be objective, your wailing and teeth-gnashing is seriously devalued.     

And for the record, Personally, I can't stand Cheney. That might be the only thing you and I agree on. But your message is juvenile


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Breaking news that the Vice President unloaded a shotgun full of bird shot into a fellow hunter.
> 
> Maybe this should be posted in the Study .....
> 
> ...


 Funny how politics drives peoples reasoning.  Cheney is hunting birds, and accidently peppers his hunting companions with bird-shot, and you want to deny him a hunting license for the rest of his life.

On the other side, however, we have this illustrious crew.

Ted Kennedy murderers a woman by driving her off a bridge, drunk, then abandoning her to walk home and call his attorney, we keep sending him back to Washington.  

Mayor Marion Barry purchases crack cocaine from under cover agents, gets sent to prison.  He gets out of prison and gets reelected.

It's kind of clear some people really don't care about the issue, they just care about your politics.  You can murder a woman, and if you're politics are right, you're a 'good man'.   You can sell and buy crack cocaine, and if you're politics are good, you're 'ok'.

If you're politics are wrong, though, and you accidentally put a few small pieces of bird shot in to a buddy while hunting, and you're a villain for life, and people want to hang you.  

So, does Ted Kennedy have a driver's license? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Now, if Cheney had pulled a Ted Kennedy, and buried the guy in the bushes and called his attorney to figure out what to do next, instead of getting him medical attention, I could understand some criticism.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am not a hunter because I am strongly opposed to guns.
> 
> Many years ago, I was in upstate Vermont when fishing in my canoe during bird season. Hearing the report from my boat was enough for me to be very aware of the dangers in the wilderness during hunting season. You will note my avatar is a fish, just prior to my releasing it. I am a very passionate outdoors person.
> 
> ...


 Just like driving a car.  So keep this in mind.  If a pedestrian jumps out in front of you, and you bump them with your car, causing minor injury, do we have your word that you're going to turn in your driver's license for life?   Or is this all just the hypocritical tirade many of us suspect?

Because, Cheney has been hunting for probably 50 years, and never had an incident like this.  Then, one day he wasn't paying the attention he should have, and made an error in judgement.  Do you expect to drive for 50 years without ever making an error in judgement?  If you do, should we ban you for life?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 12, 2006)

You guys want to talk about hunting? And hunting accidents? 

I have said nothing politically about this incident. Although there are many jokes just begging to be made, I have not issued any. 

There are approximately 400 such incidents every year in North America. Mr Cheney has joined a very elite group. This is an unfortunate opportunity to discuss the topic, because of the high profile of the nature of the shooter.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You guys want to talk about hunting? And hunting accidents?
> 
> I have said nothing politically about this incident. Although there are many jokes just begging to be made, I have not issued any.
> 
> There are approximately 400 such incidents every year in North America. Mr Cheney has joined a very elite group. This is an unfortunate opportunity to discuss the topic, because of the high profile of the nature of the shooter.


 That's because this isn't a political issue....except to you, obviously.  If it had been John Kerry, and he winged a reporter, I wouldn't hear a word from you.  Your asinine assertion that he should be 'banned for life' is nothing but political sour grapes.  Your tone and intent was never to open a dialogue on gun safety, it was an obvious effort to take a cheap shot at someone who made a moments bad judgement in a 50 plus year dedication to a sport.  In fact, when I read about the account on the internet, I knew as soon as I read it, you'd be here making political hay out of it.  You didn't disappoint me.

So lets talk about gun safety.  Did Cheney screw up?  Oh yes, he certainly did.  Did he intentionally do it?  Obviously not.  Is this a pattern of behavior?  Again, obviously not.  Should we excuse Cheney for his moments error in judgement?  I don't think there's a need to.  I seriously doubt he'll excuse himself.  In fact, i'm sure the man feels utterly and completely guilty (despite your pretensions that he's some kind of cold hearted vampire).  

The man made a moments mistake, that anybody here, including YOU could make.  In fact, many people in here will make similar mistakes over the course of their lives, whether it be with a gun, a car, a piece of equipment, or any number of things.  You could hurt someone, possibly a friend, out of nothing more than a moments slow reaction to a changing condition, or simply not seeing something.  

How do you want to be judged when that time comes, michael?  By what standard do you want a moments inattention judged by?  By what standard do you, yourself, want to be judged?


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 12, 2006)

To Micheal:

Bottom line: 

An accident occurred.  Cheney isn't at fault, since it wasn't his fault that the unfortunate fellow popped out of the tall grass unannounced.  

This is no different than if a karate-ka were practicing kata, say one that has a no-look strike to it, and then someone different stumbled onto the dojo floor without any warning at all, and ended up getting hit as a result of it.  

Is the karate-ka at fault?  No.  The other person should have had the sense to not wander onto the floor without at least warning him that he was coming onto there.  


To SgtMac: 

Sorry about the mixup earlier.  Check PM.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 12, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> That's because this isn't a political issue....except to you, obviously. If it had been John Kerry, and he winged a reporter, I wouldn't hear a word from you. Your asinine assertion that he should be 'banned for life' is nothing but political sour grapes. Your tone and intent was never to open a dialogue on gun safety, it was an obvious effort to take a cheap shot at someone who made a moments bad judgement in a 50 plus year dedication to a sport. In fact, when I read about the account on the internet, I knew as soon as I read it, you'd be here making political hay out of it. You didn't disappoint me.


 
******** !!

I really wish you would stop ascribing motive to my posts. 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So lets talk about gun safety. Did Cheney screw up? Oh yes, he certainly did. Did he intentionally do it? Obviously not. Is this a pattern of behavior? Again, obviously not. Should we excuse Cheney for his moments error in judgement? I don't think there's a need to. I seriously doubt he'll excuse himself. In fact, i'm sure the man feels utterly and completely guilty (despite your pretensions that he's some kind of cold hearted vampire).
> 
> The man made a moments mistake, that anybody here, including YOU could make. In fact, many people in here will make similar mistakes over the course of their lives, whether it be with a gun, a car, a piece of equipment, or any number of things. You could hurt someone, possibly a friend, out of nothing more than a moments slow reaction to a changing condition, or simply not seeing something.
> 
> How do you want to be judged when that time comes, michael? By what standard do you want a moments inattention judged by?


 
Well, you do an awful lot of judging of me, don't you. 

Any hunter that shoots anything other than the game at which they are aiming, and in the appropriate season should have the privilege revoked.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 12, 2006)

Grenadier said:
			
		

> To Micheal:
> 
> Bottom line:
> 
> An accident occurred. Cheney isn't at fault, since it wasn't his fault that the unfortunate fellow popped out of the tall grass unannounced.


 
Grenadier ...  

To assert Cheney isn't at fault is just downright stupid. 

I will point you to the Texas Hunter Education web page .

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/learning/hunter_education/shotsafe.phtml

*Be sure of your target and what is in front of and beyond your target.*
Before you pull the trigger you must properly identify game animals. Until your target is fully visible and in good light, do not even raise your scope to see it. Use binoculars! Know what is in front of and behind your target. Determine that you have a safe backstop or background. Since you do not know what is on the other side, never take a shot at any animals on top of ridges or hillsides. Know how far bullets, arrows and pellets can travel. Never shoot at flat, hard surfaces, such as water, rocks or steel because of ricochets.

*Know your safe zone-of-fire and stick to it.*
Your safe zone-of-fire is that area or direction in which you can safely fire a shot. It is "down range" at a shooting facility. In the field it is that mental image you draw in your mind with every step you take. Be sure you know where your companions are at all times. Never swing your gun or bow out of your safe zone-of-fire. Know the safe carries when there are persons to your sides, in front of, or behind you. If in doubt, never take a shot. When hunting, wear *daylight fluorescent orange* so you can be seen from a distance or in heavy cover.
​Based on these rules of Hunter Safety, Cheney is at fault. "Big Time".


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well, you do an awful lot of judging of me, don't you.


 No, I asked you how you wanted yourself judged in a similiar circumstance.  That you can't deal with that question honestly is rather telling.  

Because someday, heck maybe already, you're going to be backing out of your driveway, or driving down the road, or pulling in to a parking lot, and some pedestrian or other motorist is going to be there, and for a moment, just a moment, you aren't going to see them.  Then, that moment's inattention is going to lead to a collision.  Hopefully nobody gets hurt or hurt badly, but they could.  By what standard do you want to be judged by?  I don't think it'll be the standard you are applying to Mr. Cheney.  

Could you give an honest answer, please, so we can be done with this foolishness?  I don't expect an answer, because I know what standard you'll apply to yourself, and you know the obvious consequences of having one standard for yourself, and another for someone you simply don't like.  Come on, be bigger than that.


----------



## Lisa (Feb 12, 2006)

Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-LISA DENEKA
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Based on these rules of Hunter Safety, Cheney is at fault. "Big Time".


Michael, I'm going to explain the situation in a simpler sense, and if you have any questions on how hunting is conducted, I would certainly be more than happy to discuss this with you, and if you're ever in the Central Alabama area, I would certainly be happy to take you on a trip.  

The area was clear, until the other fellow blundered into the area without announcing.  If you were a hunter, you would know that birds get flushed out, and once you see them flushed out in the opening, you take the shot.  You don't expect someone to pop into your sights when you're in the process of pulling the trigger.  

It wouldn't be your fault if someone jumped into your previously clear picture, and unless you had superhuman reflexes, there would have been no way to stop the shot.  You can't pin the blame on Cheney, because he did follow proper protocols.  The other fellow did not.  

It's no different than a pedestrian who jaywalks across a busy street, and gets hit by an oncoming car.  The driver wouldn't be at fault, unless the pedestrian were at a designated crosswalk.   Even though it's a driver's responsibility to be aware at all times, and that usually the driver is at fault when hitting a pedestrian, this is simply a case where no such fault would be assigned to the driver.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 12, 2006)

Grenadier ... 

Again, from the Texas Hunter Education web site ... 
*Be sure you know where your companions are at all times. *​I have posted the link twice, and the text once. It is simple enough. As I also posted earlier, from the voice of a hunter ... "If you pull the trigger it is not an accident."


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Grenadier ...
> 
> 
> Again, from the Texas Hunter Education web site ... *Be sure you know where your companions are at all times. *
> ​I have posted the link twice, and the text once. It is simple enough.


Please read the articles that were posted.  His immediate companions were with him.  The other fellow was not part of their direct group, and was on his own.  



> As I also posted earlier, from the voice of a hunter ... "If you pull the trigger it is not an accident."


 
If you accept the quote of one hunter as being gospel, then you must be consistent in your thinking.  I'll give you a quote from another hunter (me): 

If someone blunders into your clearing, and into your line of fire right as you are pulling the trigger, it's not your fault, unless you have superhuman reflexes.  

I am finished with this thread, as I have stated the facts, and shown that this accident was not the fault of Cheney.  Once again, it's up to you to understand how hunting works, Michael. 

My offer still stands; if you want to discuss proper hunting protocols, I am more than happy to do so.  

God be with you!


----------



## Carol (Feb 12, 2006)

Hmmm, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I would wonder exactly what would need to happen for Mr. Cheney to politely step down in to retirement, leaving President Bush with an opportunity to appoint a VP to take the role of his successor for the 2008 elections.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 12, 2006)

Grenadier said:
			
		

> I am finished with this thread, as I have stated the facts, and shown that this accident was not the fault of Cheney. Once again, it's up to you to understand how hunting works, Michael.
> 
> My offer still stands; if you want to discuss proper hunting protocols, I am more than happy to do so.
> 
> God be with you!


 Quite right.  I think the point has been made quite clearly.  

It would be good if some would remember the standard they are using to judge the momentary actions of others, when they themselves are in similar situations (but that would require fair dealings with the facts).  

I, too, am done with this thread.  There's really nothing else to say but....Best wishes and warm regards.  :asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 13, 2006)

Grenadier said:
			
		

> Please read the articles that were posted. His immediate companions were with him. The other fellow was not part of their direct group, and was on his own.


 
This from the articles that were posted.



			
				Associate Press said:
			
		

> Katharine Armstrong, the ranch's owner, told The Associated Press that the accident occurred after *Cheney, Whittington and another hunter got out of a car* to shoot at a covey of quail.


 
The Vice Presient and Mr. Whittington were driving in the same car, but he was not an immediate companion? 

Do you suppose they let just anyone get into the Veep's car?

Good Grief!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 13, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This from the articles that were posted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I note your refusal to explain what standard you'd prefer yourself judged under similar circumstances.  That might be useful in furthering the discussion.  It's a very simple and straightforward question.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 13, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I note your refusal to explain what standard you'd prefer yourself judged under similar circumstances. That might be useful in furthering the discussion. It's a very simple and straightforward question.


 
In similar circumstances, I would be very carefully following the rules of Hunter Education Classes taught througout the country. 

Were I to discharge a firearm into another hunter, I would gladly have my license revoked for a lifetime.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 13, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> In similar circumstances, I would be very carefully following the rules of Hunter Education Classes taught througout the country.
> 
> Were I to discharge a firearm into another hunter, I would gladly have my license revoked for a lifetime.


 Not what I asked.  You're driving your car down the road, adjust the radio, and bump a pedestrian, who walks in front of you.  Do you turn in your driver's license for life?  It is absolutely no different.  

You are under the same kinds of obligation for careful behavior in a car as with a gun...and as cars kill far more people in the US than hunting accidents, it's extremely incumbent upon you to pay attention.  They teach that in DRIVER's education, just like Hunter's education.  

As you said you don't hunt, it's easy for you to judge a hunter's errors, but i'm sure you drive.  A lifetime of driving gives a lot of opportunities for momentary errors.  I don't think, being a driver, you'd want to to be judged by the same standard.

Do you want to answer THAT question?  I doubt you'll answer.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 13, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Not what I asked. You're driving your car down the road, adjust the radio, and bump a pedestrian, who walks in front of you. Do you turn in your driver's license for life? It is absolutely no different.
> 
> You are under the same kinds of obligation for careful behavior in a car as with a gun...and as cars kill far more people in the US than hunting accidents, it's extremely incumbent upon you to pay attention. They teach that in DRIVER's education, just like Hunter's education.
> 
> ...


 
I'm sorry. I thought you asked about 'similar circumstances'. Let me check. . . 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I note your refusal to explain what standard you'd prefer yourself judged under *similar circumstances*.


 
Yep... that's what I see ... similar circumstances. That is the question I answered, isn't it? Now, I did change the font, just for clarification. I think that is often noted as 'emphasis added'.

Silly me. I am talking about hunter safety. Discharging a firearm into your colleague.

And, just for the record, I do not think driving a car and hunting are 'similar circumstances', for a variety of reasons. Which is why I have not responded to this straw man argument.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 13, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Silly me. I am talking about hunter safety. Discharging a firearm into your colleague.


 So you're suggesting it's ok to be negligent driving your car?  That's comforting.  I guess 'I don't like hunting, so there's a zero tolerance standard there, but I like driving, so I have a lot of tolerance for mistakes made driving' is the rule of the day.  What you're talking about is holding someone to a standard you don't want held to yourself.  



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> And, just for the record, I do not think driving a car and hunting are 'similar circumstances', for a variety of reasons. Which is why I have not responded to this straw man argument.


 There is no quantitative difference between a 1 1/2 oz projectile and a 2000 pound projectile....with the exception that your 2000 pound projectile is inherently more dangerous.  The 1 1/2 oz shot has the potential to injure or possibly kill another human being, during a moments inattention.  Your 2000 pound projectile has the potential to hurt or kill numerous human beings during a moments inattention.  The only real difference between these two projectiles is the emotional response they have on the part of some people.  Yet, an emotional response is not a logical difference.  

I say again, do you wish to be held to the same standard you are suggesting holding others too?  Or do you prefer having two standards, one for you and one for someone you don't like?

I'll make this very simple.  A yes/no question.  Do you favor a life-time driver's license suspension if someone, during a moment's inattention, has a collision with another vehicle or a pedestrian?  Yes/No.

I'd be interested in hearing an honest response.  What I expect, however, is a dissertation on how they are different....the real difference being that you really don't want to be held to the standard you are suggesting.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 13, 2006)

*Accidents do happen and it was sad that someone was shot*.  Thank goodness he is not hurt to bad.  Cheney is at fault plain and simple he pointed his gun and discharged without verifying what he was shooting at.  Does that make him bad, no.  It does however make him careless in this one instance.  Bottom line I do not care who you are but if you are not more careful when hunting then I do not want to hunt with you.  To many people each year get hurt or killed because someone had a moment of carelessness.  Cheney is probably a great hunter but he screwed up this one time.  Hopefully it never happens again and his friend gets better and continues to hunt and enjoy the sport.

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


----------



## lhommedieu (Feb 13, 2006)

Grenadier said:
			
		

> Michael, I'm going to explain the situation in a simpler sense, and if you have any questions on how hunting is conducted, I would certainly be more than happy to discuss this with you, and if you're ever in the Central Alabama area, I would certainly be happy to take you on a trip.
> 
> The area was clear, until the other fellow blundered into the area without announcing. If you were a hunter, you would know that birds get flushed out, and once you see them flushed out in the opening, you take the shot. You don't expect someone to pop into your sights when you're in the process of pulling the trigger.
> 
> ...


 
Quail are fast - lightning fast.  They bolt unseen from underbrush without warning and you have to follow them with your eyes and the end of your shotgun in an arc of up to 180 degrees, at any height (in this case about six feet), at a very close distance, _in about 1/4 second_ to get a shot off.  _That is, it's not like shooting a deer from a stand at 200 yards wherein you can clearly see the background - it's instinctive reaction to a stimulus (the quail flushing suddenly from cover.) at a close range. _Furthermore, there are protocol for what to do if you come up to a line of hunters:  as the hunter at the end of a line is allowed to swing his weapon to the side _given that no one is supposed to be there_, you announce your position.

If a fellow hunter suddenly appeared anywhere within that arc while you were shooting a quail you wouldn't know he/she was there as your eye is on the quail (foreground) not the background.  Especially if he/she was in deep underbrush/grass.  And didn't tell you he/she was there.  Like he/she was supposed to.

From Reuters (February 12, 2006):

Katharine Armstrong, whose family owns the ranch, was a member of the hunting party and witnessed the accident.

She said Cheney, an experienced hunter, did not realize Whittington had rejoined the group without announcing himself, which is proper protocol among hunters.

``They had no idea he was there,'' Armstrong said.

``A bird flew up, the vice president followed it through around to his right and shot, and unfortunately, unbeknownst to anybody, Harry was there and he got peppered pretty good with a spray of 28-gauge pellets,'' Armstrong said in a telephone interview.

``He was turning, facing the vice president, but turning to the right, and it sprayed him across the right side of his face, his shoulder, his chest and along the rib cage area,'' she said.

Armstrong said Cheney's medical team attended to Whittington before he was taken to the hospital.

She described Cheney as ``an excellent, conscientious shot.''

``The person who is not doing the shooting at that moment in time is just as responsible and, should be, as the person actually shooting,'' Armstrong said.

Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said the vice president had been with Whittington at the hospital on Sunday.

``The vice president visited with Harry Whittington at the hospital and was pleased to see he is doing fine and in good spirits,'' McBride said.

Best,

Steve Lamade


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 13, 2006)

Steve, 

You are not claiming that quail travel at the speed of light, are you? The first statement in your post would seem to be hyperbole.

Also, whether Whittington did not follow proper protocol by announcing himself, or not, does not mean the person with the firearm is not responsible for their actions when they pull the trigger. 

Do the Hunter Education Classes indicate that the shooter is absolved of their responsibilities when the quarry is a bird-fast quail? 

I'ld love to have that conversation with the Conservation Officer. 

Mike

P.S. Did you see the part where Ms. Armstrong, the owner of the ranch, had stated that she had been 'peppered' herself. It looks like they are removing that quote from many of the stories, but it was there in earlier stories.

http://smh.com.au/news/world/cheney...yone-else-ducks/2006/02/13/1139679534824.html


> Ms Armstrong said Mr Whittington was knocked off his feet and was bleeding but did not lose consciousness. "This is something that happened from time to time. You know, I've been peppered pretty well myself."


----------



## Martial Tucker (Feb 13, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> P.S. Did you see the part where Ms. Armstrong, the owner of the ranch, had stated that she had been 'peppered' herself. It looks like they are removing that quote from many of the stories, but it was there in earlier stories.
> 
> http://smh.com.au/news/world/cheney-hunts-quail-and-everyone-else-ducks/2006/02/13/1139679534824.html


Yes, It appears that it has happened to her in the past. No where does it say or even imply that she had been shot in this incident or in the past by Cheney. It even says she was in the car when this incident occurred.
Your statement implies that Cheney has culpability in her previous injury, and that is worse than irresponsible. Jumping to ridiculous conclusions like this really undermines your credibility.


----------



## rutherford (Feb 13, 2006)

Well, the quote doesn't seem immediately relevant.  She seems to have meant that **** happens, and it wasn't a big deal.  Anti-gun nuts will use the quote in a different way.

michaeledward, advance your agenda all you like, but be aware that this is exactly what you're doing.  I dislike the VP a great deal, but as a pro-sportsman I can't see any foul play in this tragic incident.  Happily, Harry Whittington will be ok.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 13, 2006)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> Yes, It appears that it has happened to her in the past. No where does it say or even imply that she had been shot in this incident or in the past by Cheney. It even says she was in the car when this incident occurred.
> Your statement implies that Cheney has culpability in her previous injury, and that is worse than irresponsible. Jumping to ridiculous conclusions like this really undermines your credibility.


 
I wonder why you feel that referencing this statement implies anything about the Vice President. I certainly didn't intend for anyone to draw that inference. 

What the statement should imply, is that Ms. Armstrong is perhaps not running the safest hunting preserve. If people are regularly 'peppered' (or even infrequently 'peppered') with bird shot on her property, I might think about visiting a different hunting club.

Any different inferences you draw from my noting the quote, are not my intention. I don't believe I jumped to any conclusion. I reported a statment, that is mysteriously disappearing from the news reports.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 13, 2006)

rutherford said:
			
		

> Well, the quote doesn't seem immediately relevant. She seems to have meant that **** happens, and it wasn't a big deal. Anti-gun nuts will use the quote in a different way.
> 
> michaeledward, advance your agenda all you like, but be aware that this is exactly what you're doing. I dislike the VP a great deal, but as a pro-sportsman I can't see any foul play in this tragic incident. Happily, Harry Whittington will be ok.


 
rutherford, I am not advancing any 'foul play' from this incident. I think anyone who discharges a firearm into a person does not deserve the privilege of hunting. 

If that is an agenda, it is a pro-sportsman agenda.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Feb 13, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I wonder why you feel that referencing this statement implies anything about the Vice President. I certainly didn't intend for anyone to draw that inference.
> 
> What the statement should imply, is that Ms. Armstrong is perhaps not running the safest hunting preserve. If people are regularly 'peppered' (or even infrequently 'peppered') with bird shot on her property, I might think about visiting a different hunting club.
> 
> Any different inferences you draw from my noting the quote, are not my intention. I don't believe I jumped to any conclusion. I reported a statment, that is mysteriously disappearing from the news reports.



......................:bs:


----------



## lhommedieu (Feb 13, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Steve,
> 
> You are not claiming that quail travel at the speed of light, are you? The first statement in your post would seem to be hyperbole.


 
Light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second (in a vacuum at least - if not in Texas). If Dick Cheney could move that fast, I doubt that we'd have too many problems in Iraq.

As for hyperbole - I think that you're splitting hares.  Let's ask someone else who hunts quail whether a split-second reaction time is an accurate description of how quickly you have to respond to a flushed quail.

Further, I'm not claiming that Vice President Cheney does not bear any _responsibility_ for the shooting, but raise the issue as to whether he is at _fault_.  As an analogy:  if I'm heading down the highway at 65 mph and a deer bolts in front of my car and I hit it, then I bear _responsibility_ for my action but I am not at _fault_ (not unless I can see around corners in the dark, and can foretell the future, that is).

If the accident happened exactly the way that it is described in the press, then it was _unavoidable_, period.  No amount of schoolmarmishly quoting hunter safety manuals is going to change that.  

For a good movie with respect to hunting accidents and their consequences, I recommend "The Stone Boy," starring Robert Duval and Glenn Close.  It puts a human face on something that most people can only consider in the abstract.

Best,

Steve


----------



## Martial Tucker (Feb 13, 2006)

lhommedieu said:
			
		

> As for hyperbole - I think that you're splitting hares.  Let's ask someone else who hunts quail whether a split-second reaction time is an accurate description of how quickly you have to respond to a flushed quail.



As for hyperbole, this entire thread is hyperbole. It was a simple, unintentional, and according to the owner of the property, not uncommon type of hunting accident. As I said earlier, if the shooter had been Kerry or Lieberman, this thread would have never happened. If the purpose of this thread was not political, as was stated earlier, the only other purpose of a thread like this would be
"Hunter Safety", and there have been countless stories in the past of similar instances that could have been selected for discussion.
What a bizarre coincidence that the originator of this thread didn't care enough about earlier hunting accidents to launch such a thread, but suddenly got very concerned about hunter safety when the errant hunter was a prominent politician with a different political outlook.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 13, 2006)

When I was five years old, my father gave me a single pump bb gun so that I could practice safe gun handling while hunting with him.  I did well for a long time, but I had an accident about a year later.  As I was loading the weapon, I accidentally pointed it at my father.  If it would have went off, I would have been in even deeper do do.  As it was, my father "only" took the gun away and refused to take me hunting for a year.  Since then, I've been very careful and concientious.  

With that in mind, I could feasibly imagine a scenario where a law might be passed that would require gun owners who have accidents to "recertify" in some sort of safety course before they can get a hunting license again...or even before they buy another firearm.  However, I can also see, too, the argument that could be made that this would infringe upon a person's 2nd amendment rights.  So, I'm not sure if it would ever happen.

The bottom line is that accidents happen and accidents with firearms are often tragic, but they are still accidents.  Sure, punishing someone forever for an accident would be a good way to reduce "repeat offenses" but I think a little education gives someone the benefit of the doubt.  "Rehabilitation", in this context, seems appropriate.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Feb 13, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I could feasibly imagine a scenario where a law might be passed that would require gun owners who have accidents to "recertify" in some sort of safety course before they can get a hunting license again...or even before they buy another firearm.  However, I can also see, too, the argument that could be made that this would infringe upon a person's 2nd amendment rights.  So, I'm not sure if it would ever happen.
> 
> The bottom line is that accidents happen and accidents with firearms are often tragic, but they are still accidents.  Sure, punishing someone forever for an accident would be a good way to reduce "repeat offenses" but I think a little education gives someone the benefit of the doubt.  "Rehabilitation", in this context, seems appropriate.



I think it's as much "re-education", and in the aftermath of an _accident_, I think it's entirely appropriate. I'm all for the right to own a firearm, but I think  that before you can legally take it off of your property you should first have to pass a firearm safety class, with regular re-tests, just like driving. If you have an accident, your firearm should be limited to your home for a probationary period, during which you must recertify.

John, I've read enough of your posts in the past to comfortably infer that you are probably not a Cheney fan. As such, I do appreciate your level-headed analysis of this non-story.


----------



## arnisador (Feb 13, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am not a hunter because I am strongly opposed to guns.


 
In some states you can hunt with the atlatl.



> I was in upstate Vermont when fishing


 
That's hunting to my mind.



> I do not excuse the accident of the man who was shot, but it was not his actions that got him shot. It was Richard Cheney who pulled the trigger.


 
You have to be responsible for your own shot, I feel...but, while you're responsible for safe operation of your car, if someone darts into traffic from between parked cars, you may not have been in a position to do anything to keep from hitting him. Is it the same case here? I don't have enough information to know. It sounds like there is fault to go around.

I do not believe in faster-than-light quails. Like R.O.U.S.'s, they're a myth.

Some jokes and other fallout about this unfortuntae incident:



> Guns don't shoot people. The vice president shoots people
> [...]


----------



## rutherford (Feb 13, 2006)

The fallout from this incident has been pretty spectacular.  The majority of the "news" articles are comedy pieces.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 13, 2006)

The third person in the hunting group was a Texas woman that is currently serving as an Ambassador to Switzerland; Pamela Willeford. She was apparently appointed to the Texas board of higher education by Governor Bush.

She made a statement that indicates the Vice President might have had the sun in his eyes as he was shooting. 



> Adding to the account, Willeford told Cox news service that "the sun was behind Whittington as well, possibly making him more difficult to see."


----------



## 7starmantis (Feb 13, 2006)

I think many great points have been posted here. I also think the refering to Cheney as "Deadeye Dick" would be a great idea!! I can find the humor in it being that everyone is fine. Its an accident, plain and simple. If an olympic javelin thrower stuck a javelin through an official on the field would be bann him/her from competing again? (Hint: We haven't in the past) The javelin thrower can actually see the people on the field too. 

I think its an accident that apparently everyone has learned from and if the unfortunate man who was shot can accept his own responsibility and not be upset I'm inclinded to accept it. 

Just my few cents....
7sm


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 13, 2006)

The real error, possibly, in the whole situation is allowing by-standers to accompany the VP on these type of outings.  The more gawkers you have standing around, the more chances you have of having this sort of accident.

I have to wonder how many people Presidents and VP's in the past winged someone and we never heard about.  What's a little birdshot between friends, anyway?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 13, 2006)

The Vice President was cited for hunting without the proper game stamp affixed to his license. (PWC 43.652). The incident report also shows 'unknown' to the Hunter Education Certificate which is required to hunt in Texas.

The document is available at www.thesmokinggun.com


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 13, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The Vice President was cited for hunting without the proper game stamp affixed to his license. (PWC 43.652). The incident report also shows 'unknown' to the Hunter Education Certificate which is required to hunt in Texas.
> 
> The document is available at www.thesmokinggun.com


 A written warning, actually.

Also, mikey, the state of Texas only requires hunter's education if you're born on or AFTER September 2, 1971......I think Cheney's a little older than that.

It's funny when a guy's statements don't match his supporting documentation.

Also, the Kennedy Sheriff's department investigated, and said this.... 



> "The investigation reveals that there was no alcohol, or misconduct involved in the incident.  Mr. Whittington's interview collaborated Vice President Cheney's statement.  This Department is fully satisfied that this was no more than a hunting accident"


 http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0213061cheney3.html


----------



## kelly keltner (Feb 13, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The Vice President was cited for hunting without the proper game stamp affixed to his license. (PWC 43.652). The incident report also shows 'unknown' to the Hunter Education Certificate which is required to hunt in Texas.
> 
> The document is available at www.thesmokinggun.com


I'm not an expert but I think that a hunter education certificate is most likely what you get when you attend a hunter safety class. The website states that you are not required to take that class in Texas unless you were born after 1971-72. So the fact that it was marked unknown is a moot point at best.
kk
I just posted this and it looks like SGTMAC beat me to the punch.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 14, 2006)

Well, thank you for pointing out the age requirement to be taking a hunter education class.

The Press Release from the Kenedy Sherrif's department does not indicate the 'investigation' went any further than a phone coversation with the Vice President's Secret Service staff, and a phone call to Mr. Whittington.

I believe I saw reports that indicated the Secret Service would not allow the local police department to interview the Vice President.

I am not suggesting a conspiracy theory. Just pointing out that, perhaps, a courtesy is being extended to the Vice President that would not be extended to other citizens (like not notifying the public for a day).

Correction & Update - Kenedy County deputy Sherriff Sanmiguel did interview the Vice President on Saturday evening, according to the New York Times. Also, the Vice President has mailed the $7.00 for the correct Game Bird Stamp - you know, I once asked a Massachusetts Conservation Officer what he would do if I did not have my license properly displayed while fishing ... His answer was direct "I'ld arrest you". - It's good to be Vice President.

Correction & Update 2 - There is a discrepincy - The Associated Press is reporting that Deputy Sherrif Sanmiguel, did not interview the Vice President until Sunday Morning, according to the Secret Service Spokesperson. Apparently, when Sanmiguel was turned away from the ranch on Saturday evening.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 14, 2006)

The Charlotte Observer has an interesting article on hunting and Vice President this morning. 

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/opinion/13866143.htm



> *Cheney ignored safe hunting procedures*
> 
> *Bird hunters should use dogs and fewer guns -- and leave car behind*
> 
> ...


----------



## punisher73 (Feb 14, 2006)

> I once asked a Massachusetts Conservation Officer what he would do if I did not have my license properly displayed while fishing ... His answer was direct "I'ld arrest you". - It's good to be Vice President.


 
Whatever on that one.  The laws are going to vary state to state as well as with officer to officer.  In Michigan they site you a ticket for not having a fishing license, let alone for having a license that just wasn't properly displayed.  Also, alot of cops will give you a "worst case" scenario to weed out the people who try to find out might happen as to weigh whether or not they should commit the crime/infraction.  I now I've done that in the past.

I think alot of the nonhunters are also mistaking bird hunting with deer hunting.  In deer hunting you are shooting at a stationary target most of the time with a SINGLE projectile.  When you are bird hunting you are using MULTIPLE projectiles that SPREAD out on the point of aim.  That means that even if your point of aim is clear in that area you could still hit other things due to the spread of it.  

If the guy came up into the hunting area unannounced it is presumed by hunters that the area is still safe.  That is why it is SOO important to announce where you are at so the others will know that direction is not clear.  This wasn't the Wedding Crashers where the guy was standing right in front of him and Cheney just got trigger happy, this is a case where a hunter did not follow proper procedure and an accident happened.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 14, 2006)

More "Blame the Victim" ... geesh. 

I thought the Republican Party was the party of law and order; you know, punish the offender. It's supposed to be the 'bleeding heart liberals' who want to 'understand' and 'treat' the criminal. 

Now, it seems they all want to give the guy who a) broke the law b) exercised poor judgement and c) pulled the trigger, a pass.



Oh, and P.S. - I have occassionally fished at this private resort myself; www.wildernessadventureshunt.com They do upland bird hunting. So, I am a bit familiar with the methods and techniques of bird hunting.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Feb 14, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> More "Blame the Victim" ... geesh.
> 
> I thought the Republican Party was the party of law and order; you know, punish the offender.


Sure, punish the offender when HE BREAKS THE LAW. I don't believe any charges have been filed or laws have been broken.
I have gone on record as saying I am not a Cheney fan, and I will go further and say that regardless of the lapse in hunting protocol by the victim, the fault in this incident is primarily with Cheney. 
Having said that, is it necessary to review AGAIN the fact that this was a simple ACCIDENT?
Accidents unfortunately happen......to BOTH Democrats and Republicans.
But it will be a cold day in hell when you launch a hysterical thread ranting
about lifetime punishment the next time a prominent Democrat has an accident in which an innocent person is injured. 
You want to ban Cheney from hunting for life? Fine, then as was mentioned yesterday, then take away Ted Kennedy's drivers license for life. His accident KILLED someone, and he just ran and hid. I don't hear you talking about that. 
As I stated yesterday, if you can't be objective, your hysteria becomes mere noise.


----------



## kenpojujitsu (Feb 14, 2006)

"3) The lawyer who got shot did not make his whereabouts known to Cheney his friend. The fault would lie with the shootee, not the shooter."

This is essentially, correct.  Although the guy who was shot walked ahead to get his bird.  He went arounf and came back in a different direction.  They had no way of knowing where he was.  Cheney tracked his bird and shot in a different direction than the other guy went.  Cheney shot and the guy got sprayed with bird shot.

It was an accident that is really both of thier faults.  But as usual, the democrats in the media have blown it all out of proportion and refuse to tell the story fully and correctly.

I also have to laugh at the way the left wing media fired off all those stupid questions and Scott McCLellan (finally) told one of the them to stop being a jerk.  They need to be told that on a dalily basis.

The jerks were demanding to know why it took more than an hour for someone to inform the President.  It never dawned on them that perhaps as the Preisident he may have been busy and they wanted to get some facts straight before they pulled him out of a meeting to tell him.  Being that it was not a serious wound the story took less presidence over things like the war, nuclear tensions in Iran, the economy, etc, etc, etc.

When Ted Kennedy killed someone the democrats banned together to protect him - and still do to this day.  This drunken killer is still a hero to the democrats, never went to jail,  still has a drivers license and will be in the Senate as long as he wants to be.  Cheney has an accident where the victim not only survives, but is not seriously wounded and the jacka$$$$ start calling for him to resign.


----------



## arnisador (Feb 14, 2006)

http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/ap/2006/02/14/ap2525155.html



> The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department issued a report Monday that found the main factor contributing to the accident was a "hunter's judgment factor." No other secondary factors were found to have played a role.
> 
> The department gave Cheney and the victim, prominent Republican attorney Harry Whittington, warning citations for breaking Texas hunting law by failing to buy a $7 stamp allowing them to shoot upland game birds. A department spokesman said warnings are being issued in most cases because the stamp requirement only went into effect five months ago and many hunters weren't aware of it.



Hmmm, it doesn't clearly say whether the hunter was Dick Cheney or his victim.



> But the accident raised questions about Cheney's adherence to hunting safety practices and the White House's failure to disclose the accident in a timely way.
> 
> Several hunting safety experts interviewed agreed it would have been a good idea for Whittington to announce himself. But every expert stressed that the shooter is responsible for avoiding other people.



The article notes that the White House has taken the tack of joking about the incident. My morning paper had several jokes from various late-night shows in it.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 14, 2006)

One might assume that the owner of the Ranch would be fully familiar with any and all Texas Parks and Wildlife Laws. That Ms. Armstrong allowed the hunt to proceed on her property without the hunters having the correct licensing just adds another level of riduculousness to the case.

When I travelled to Lac Terney in Quebec last fall, the first thing we did when our plane landed, was to complete the licensing process. Not only did we have to fill out and sign the correct paperwork. We had to forewarn the camp what type of license we were purchasing and make all payments prior to arriving at the camp.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 14, 2006)

The Doctors are now reporting Mr. Whittington had a heart attack after some of the birdshot entered his heart ...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 14, 2006)

Wow, let's hope that he recovers fully!

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 14, 2006)

I've never hunted game or fowl, only fish and I must ask some questions that just seem logical to me ....

And I understand there is hunting ettiquette, but I also understand there is basic firearm safety, all of which I do not pretend to know.

1. If you don't know where a member of your hunting party is, why, again is it okay to fire?

2. If a member of your hunting party is in the brush ... why again is it okay to take the shot?

3. If you haven't cleared your field of vision in that split second before firing on prey, or you're shooting into the sun, why again is it okay to take the shot?

I know these seem to be leading questions, but I think I can ascertain what happened with the other party (until/unless he wakes up).  

Just asking. Thanks.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 14, 2006)

kenpojujitsu said:
			
		

> When Ted Kennedy killed someone the democrats banned together to protect him - and still do to this day.  This drunken killer is still a hero to the democrats, never went to jail,  still has a drivers license and will be in the Senate as long as he wants to be.  Cheney has an accident where the victim not only survives, but is not seriously wounded and the jacka$$$$ start calling for him to resign.


FYI - not all democrats like Kennedy purely because of this issue.  And I sure seem to recall that some dems calling for his resignation ... I'll see if I can dig that one up in my spare time.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Feb 14, 2006)

Because of who he is nothing will be done about it. First rule to hunting (I am experience in what they teach in PA because dad taught hunters education for 12 years.), is to LOOK before you shoot.

Next he did not have a license to hunt .... why is everyone making excuses for his stupid act. Yes it may have been an accident, but it was also stupidy on the part of Cheney. Its interesting to see people defend even those kind of things when it comes to their political party.


----------



## modarnis (Feb 14, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I've never hunted game or fowl, only fish and I must ask some questions that just seem logical to me ....
> 
> And I understand there is hunting ettiquette, but I also understand there is basic firearm safety, all of which I do not pretend to know.
> 
> ...




Answer to all 3, as a hunter who hunts birds regularly is It isn't safe to shoot in those situations.

In response to the unlicensed comment by a subsequent poster.  He had the hunting license, but not the bird stamp.  Somewhat side arguments to the real issue which is know where your target is and where your shot might go before you pull the trigger


----------



## kenpojujitsu (Feb 14, 2006)

He did not have a heart attack, he has in irregular heart beat.  Just more press trying to make more of the story.

To address the other issue of the "proper licensing" and the "bird stamp": Cheney's office called to get him a proper license before leaving for the trip.  They were not told he needed the bird stamp.  Since it was a new requirement, they are only issuing warnings.  Everything was done that needed to be done in order to comply with the regualtions.  The state messed up and did not tell him to get the bird stamp.


----------



## Brother John (Feb 14, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Breaking news that the Vice President unloaded a shotgun full of bird shot into a fellow hunter.
> 
> The Vice President should be denied a hunting license for the rest of his life.


Excuse me please for coming into this thread SO VERY late...
sorry
But....is This what generally happens if you accidentally shoot someone in a hunting accident and they live?   I really don't know, I don't hunt. ((YES....a Kansan who doesn't hunt...odd I know))

IF it is what happens to any citizen in a like situation...then yes, I think that's what should happen to VP Cheney.

Your Brother
John


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 14, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I've never hunted game or fowl, only fish and I must ask some questions that just seem logical to me ....
> 
> And I understand there is hunting ettiquette, but I also understand there is basic firearm safety, all of which I do not pretend to know.
> 
> ...


 Not one single person has said it's 'ok'.  What we've said is that it's not a lifetime banning offense.  Just like it's not ok, NOT to pay attention while driving down the road, we don't revoke people's driver's licenses for life for a moments inattention.  That's the point.

As i've pointed out to michael, over and over again, by what standard do you want yourself judged in a similar situation (say, while driving down the road)?  It's not ok not to pay attention, but it happens....and can happen to any of us.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 14, 2006)

kenpojujitsu said:
			
		

> When Ted Kennedy killed someone the democrats banned together to protect him - and still do to this day. This drunken killer is still a hero to the democrats, never went to jail, still has a drivers license and will be in the Senate as long as he wants to be. Cheney has an accident where the victim not only survives, but is not seriously wounded and the jacka$$$$ start calling for him to resign.


 This is exactly right.  To be even remotely similar, Cheney would had to have been all liquored up first, then shot the attorney.

Then he would have had to have buried the attorney in the brush, drove back to the ranch, called his private attorney, discussed the matter, went to sleep, and then returned the next morning along with family members to 'make sure' the attorney was dead.....oh, did I forget to say he'd had to have left his pants at the scene.

Of course, I suppose the most successful think Kennedy did was to hold a weeping press conference, when it became clear he couldn't weasel his way out.  The press loves it when Democratic politicians are contrite and apologetic on camera.


----------



## Brother John (Feb 14, 2006)

seems that an older man used some poor judgement.
....t's-about it.

Your Brother
John


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 14, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> As i've pointed out to michael, over and over again, by what standard do you want yourself judged in a similar situation (say, while driving down the road)? It's not ok not to pay attention, but it happens....and can happen to any of us.


 
And what I have left unsaid mostly, and said directly, is that driving a vehicle is not a 'similar situation' to hunting. It is a straw man argument. 




			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> But....is This what generally happens if you accidentally shoot someone in a hunting accident and they live? I really don't know, I don't hunt.


 
I am certain that laws vary by state. In New Hampshire, if there is a fatality, the privilege is revoked for 10 years, after which time, the shooter must petition the Executive Director of the Fish and Game Department to re-evaluate whether the privilege should be re-extended. We recently had the issue come up before the state, and I worked pretty hard personally to be sure the shooter will not be able to hunt again in the State.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xviii/207/207-37-b.htm

Also, in the state of New Hampshire, a blood test to determine alcohol levels is required in the event of a fatality or serious bodily injury.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XVIII/214/214-20-l.htm

I can't speak to the laws in Texas, but the Vice President certainly would have spoken to a Law Enforcement Officer on Saturday night in New Hampshire, if he weren't the V.P.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 14, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And what I have left unsaid mostly, and said directly, is that driving a vehicle is not a 'similar situation' to hunting. It is a straw man argument.


  How about, instead of simply 'saying' that driving is a dissimilar situation, you explain exactly why it's different.  Is negligent operation of a vehicle 'less deadly'?  I'd love to hear an explaination as to why you think this may be, other than because you drive, and don't want to be judged by that standard for driving.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 14, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I've never hunted game or fowl, only fish and I must ask some questions that just seem logical to me ....
> 
> And I understand there is hunting ettiquette, but I also understand there is basic firearm safety, all of which I do not pretend to know.
> 
> ...


 
1) It's ok, if the member of your party is not in the "field of fire" i.e. in line beside or behind you.  If what I read previously is true, and he walked off in the opposite direction and did not announce his position, Many hunters (regardless of political affiliation,) seeing nothing dangerous, would make the shot, _believing_ the field of fire was clear.

2) It's not.  Again, unless the member was in the brush in a position opposite of the field of fire.  If we were hunting, and I said, I am going to pick this bird up over here to the left, then wander out in front of you, whos the idiot? You or me?

3) You shouldnt fire if you havnt cleared your field of vision, or if you cannot see because of somthing like say the sun.  You can't tell if you are shooting a bird or not at that point.  

Overall, this is a stupid hunting accident, and ALL parties involved made mistakes in their behavior...


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 14, 2006)

I tend to agree that there is blame to go around and I think what some people are taking issue with is the automatic defense of the Veep and what could be read as justification for innocence rather than education stemming from ignorance or possible laziness.

I can understand about the stamp thingy - been in similar positions before with fishing.

As far as cars go, Cars were made for drivin' not killing, guns were made for killing. Sorry, but it's true and it doesn't mean I'm against guns, I rather like them.  I want several more than I have - if I have what the bad guy has, even better.  BUT ... You don't take a BMW into the brush and toss it at quail, now, do we?

Now, I suppose the ensuing statement will probably be something like far more people die from vehicular accidents than gun accidents and we all know that and really ... that isn't the point, now is it?  Perhaps it will be when people are driving their shotguns to work.

The point here is that there is blame to go around - to include the Veep.  Let's not dismiss it due to partisan preferences, shall we?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 15, 2006)

Actually, both guns and cars are inanimate objects.  Attributing characteristics, motives and desires in to inanimate objects is anthropomorphism.  

Neither a car nor a gun, nor a baseball bat nor a heavy stick has any attribute seperate from that instilled by the user.  So a 'gun' is not a 'killing thing' anymore or less than a car is.  A gun can be used for any number of things, seperate from 'killing'.  A car, likewise, can be used as a weapon.  

Again, the attribution of desires and motives to inanimate objects seems to be a common pathology in today's society.  A car and a gun are both tools, nothing more.  They don't have motives, they don't have desires, they don't have 'souls', they are simply pieces of plastic, metal, wood, and other materials. Attributing any other characteristics to them than that is a logical fallacy.

Why understanding that is important, is because that is the root of the 'guns are different that cars' error.  What single phenomenon governs the safe use of a gun or a car?  Is it inherent within the material of the tool?  No, the single phenomenon is the human operator.  Without that, both a gun and a car would simply sit there.

So, could someone explain to me, again, why they are DUTY BOUND, under pain of lifetime ban, to operate a firearm, 100% of the time, safely (which, i believe they are) but at the same time NOT DUTY BOUND, under pain of lifetime ban, to operate a motorvehicle, 100% of the time, safely?  The standard should be the same, and if it's the 'Commit one single error, and you're banned for life' argument, lets at least show some consistency of thought.  

Now, to address the issue, Cheney screwed up, there is no doubt about that.  It was his mistake, regardless of what his companion did, he was ultimately responsible for pulling the trigger.  He screwed up, and a hunting companion got injured.  He has to deal with the consequences of that.

What I take issue with, however, is the attitudes of people like michael who, for political reasons (and the fact that he doesn't like guns or hunting) want to hold Mr. Cheney to a standard that he himself would not wish to be held in other dangerous pursuits....like driving down the road.  

Of course I will hear explainations about how 'that's different' but those who engage in hypocracy are always able to rationalize how their situation is different and, hence, they are exempt of their own standards.  Let those without a moments misjudgement in a lifetime of decision making cast the first stone.  Ask yourselves what standard you want to be judged by.  

Keep that in mind while changing radio stations, or talking on the cell phone on the ride home, and remember that those actions make you every bit (if not more so) as Mr. Cheney was, if you have an accident, because you engage in them KNOWING long before hand that they increase your potential to have a collision.  Mr. Cheney turned, and had a single moment to decide whether to fire or not.  He made the wrong decision.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Feb 15, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I tend to agree that there is blame to go around and I think what some people are taking issue with is the automatic defense of the Veep and what could be read as justification for innocence rather than education stemming from ignorance or possible laziness.


 
Yes, my first impression (which remains) was that this was most likely a "mutual mistake" type situation. In truth, I feel great sympathy for both of the individuals involved. The VP is probably banging his head against the wall with grief, and probably feelings of guilt (whether justified or not) and the other is in the hospital suffering. This is a tragedy, and I am very ANGRY at those who seem to be trying to exploit this for party reasons. It may very well turn out that the V.P. was somehow negligent, but, if so, that is independent of his political position.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 15, 2006)

Ok, so the VP failed to buy a $7 stamp for his license and was issued a warning about it. That, on it's own is on par with the "courtesy" numerous LEOs do to family of other LEO when they encounter minor violations.

The big issue is the failure on both sides of the shot to follow established "common sense guidelines" while hunting.  

If the shooter/shootee had been nobodies, it wouldn't have gone past the local paper. Because it's the VP, it's a big deal.

Bottom line, it was an accident, probably avoidable, and thankfully no one was killed.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 15, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Again, the attribution of desires and motives to inanimate objects seems to be a common pathology in today's society. A car and a gun are both tools, nothing more. They don't have motives, they don't have desires, they don't have 'souls', they are simply pieces of plastic, metal, wood, and other materials. Attributing any other characteristics to them than that is a logical fallacy.


O .... kay.  I frankly did not assign any anthropomorphism.  Inanimate objects are made, hence the term "Cars are made for drivin'."

My point is that a motor vehicle is designed to transport a payload from one location to another strictly for the purposes of transportation.

A firearm is designed to deliver a payload at an extremely high rate of speed and accuracy from its original location to a recipient. Though they have also been used for sport they were indeed designed with the purpose of killing in mind - game, fowl, intruder, predator.

Ummmmm ... could you please point me to my exact words where I gave feelings, intentions and other warm fuzzies to metal?


----------



## arnisador (Feb 15, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Neither a car nor a gun, nor a baseball bat nor a heavy stick has any attribute seperate from that instilled by the user.  So a 'gun' is not a 'killing thing' anymore or less than a car is.



Nonsense. Guns are designed to shoot things in order to injure them. They're not designed to be hammers.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 15, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Ok, so the VP failed to buy a $7 stamp for his license and was issued a warning about it. That, on it's own is on par with the "courtesy" numerous LEOs do to family of other LEO when they encounter minor violations.
> 
> The big issue is the failure on both sides of the shot to follow established "common sense guidelines" while hunting.
> 
> ...


I completely agree.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 15, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> My point is that a motor vehicle is designed to transport a payload from one location to another strictly for the purposes of transportation.
> 
> A firearm is designed to deliver a payload at an extremely high rate of speed and accuracy from its original location to a recipient. Though they have also been used for sport they were, indeed designed with the purpose of killing in mind - game, fowl, intruder, predator.
> 
> Ummmmm ... could you please point me to my exact words where I gave feelings, intentions and other warm fuzzies to metal?


 You said they were 'made for killin'".  They are BOTH made to deliver a payload, they are mere wood, steel and plastic.  As such, they are both merely tools.  The decision maker of both is the operator, the human being.  To say that a gun requires a special degree of care well beyond a car is absurd.  They are both tools that require the same degree of care.  

Further, the 'intent' of the designer, is likewise irrelavent, as it is not the designer who is using the tool, it is the end-user.  They install every aspect of motive behind the tool.  A car is used as a tool or a weapon, based on the motives of the user, not the designer.  A gun is used as a tool or a weapon, based on the motives of the user, not the designer.  Designers do not magically instill an inanimate object with motives.  It is the user that gives a tool motive. 

A baseball bat is a prime example.  What is a baseball bat?  Is it a tool for sports or a weapon?  Does the designer decide?  Or the user?  

The idea that a firearm is some special kind of object with a set of motives is anthropomorphism.   

So, explain to me, why you think they are different in the sense of the degree of care the operator should use?  You made the assertion that they were different in that respect, unless I misunderstood you of course.  It would seem to me that the same level of care should be afforded BOTH so as to avoid killing innocent bystanders.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 15, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Nonsense. Guns are designed to shoot things in order to injure them. They're not designed to be hammers.


You should watch more CSI.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 15, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Nonsense. Guns are designed to shoot things in order to injure them. They're not designed to be hammers.


 Whether a gun is used as a weapon, a hammer, a paper weight, or as a flower pot, is entirely the decision of the user, not the designer.  Whether a car is used as a weapon, a transportation device, or as a platform for mating, is entirely the decision of the user, not the designer.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 15, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You said they were 'made for killin'". They are BOTH made to deliver a payload, they are mere wood, steel and plastic. As such, they are both merely tools. The decision maker of both is the operator, the human being. To say that a gun requires a special degree of care well beyond a car is absurd. They are both tools that require the same degree of care.


Exactly the same degree? I'm not so sure I agree with you on that as I'm sure most probably would not be as well, since we don't have "firearm education" and licensing coming up for most 16-year-olds in the country. Any motor vehicle requires great care and attention to operate safely.  However the intent of its design can be argued till judgement day, though it was originally called The Horseless Carriage, not the Bowless Arrow.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Further, the 'intent' of the designer, is likewise irrelavent, as it is not the designer who is using the tool, it is the end-user. They install every aspect of motive behind the tool. A car is used as a tool or a weapon, based on the motives of the user, not the designer. A gun is used as a tool or a weapon, based on the motives of the user, not the designer.


Today, perhaps, but when we look at the original intent of the design of the tool, we could very easily use the same argument for screwdrivers and icepicks, though they are indeed very different tools designed specifically for specific things and the same amount of care (according to what I'm gleaning as your scale) is required to responsibly handle either. 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So, explain to me, why you think they are different in the sense of the degree of care the operator should use? You made the assertion that they were different in that respect.


I didn't make that assertion, you have invented it, I'm afraid ... unless you can point me to my exact wording, whereupon I shall apologize and do my best to honor your request.

But I'm afraid we are getting off-topic again.  The topic is (or at least it should be) what we can learn from the mishap on this hunting trip.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 15, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Exactly the same degree? I'm not so sure I agree with you on that as I'm sure most probably would not be as well, since we don't have "firearm education" and licensing coming up for most 16-year-olds in the country. Any motor vehicle requires great care and attention to operate safely. However the intent of its design can be argued till judgement day, though it was originally called The Horseless Carriage, not the Bowless Arrow.


 And the 'horesless carriage' can make people just as dead, regardless of the alleged difference in 'design'.  It isn't the 'design' that makes guns or vehicles deadly (as the assumption that the designer lends it intent would presume) but ENTIRELY the actions of the operator.  I'm not sure what you meant by 'since we don't have firearms education and licensing coming up for most 16-year old's in this country'.  Perhaps you could explain what you mean.



			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> Today, perhaps, but when we look at the original intent of the design of the tool, we could very easily use the same argument for screwdrivers and icepicks, though they are indeed very different tools designed specifically for specific things and the same amount of care (according to what I'm gleaning as your scale) is required to responsibly handle either.


 Again, you are falling back on the intent of the 'designer' which as ZERO to do with the intent of the user.  The designer does not instill inanimate objects with a 'desire' to 'act' in a given way.  How an object acts, is entirely the decision of the user.  If you accidentally stab your partner in the eye with an ice-pick, he is no less blind than if you accidentally hit him in the eye with birdshot.  It is your INTENT and ACTIONS (both intentional and unintentional) that created the circumstances, not the intent of the designer of your tool.



			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> I didn't make that assertion, you have invented it, I'm afraid ... unless you can point me to my exact wording, whereupon I shall apologize and do my best to honor your request.


 Sure, you said that they weren't the same thing, a gun was designed for 'killing' (your words) while a car was designed for driving.  You made it clear that the two were somehow different in the degree of care expected in their use.  I keep asking exactly how you arrive at the fact that one should require a greater degree of care.

I'm sorry, shesulsa, I don't mean to get testy, but I get annoyed when people presume that a firearm is somehow different than any other tool.  They are wood, steel and plastic.  The designer did not suddenly mold inanimate materials in to 'Ring of Sauron', where the designer's will somehow lives on.  That a gun can fire a high speed projectile is true.  But there is nothing inherent in the steel, wood and plastic that causes it to in anyway be dangerous.  It is entirely the will of the user that makes ANY tool dangerous.  



			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> But I'm afraid we are getting off-topic again. The topic is (or at least it should be) what we can learn from the mishap on this hunting trip.


 We learn not to be careless operating tools that are dangerous.  That would be the lesson I hope we would learn.  Many tools we use can hurt us and innocent by-standers, whether it be a shotgun on a hunting trip, a car driving down the road, a jack hammer, or a machine press.  We need to pay attention.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 15, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> And the 'horesless carriage' can make people just as dead, regardless of the alleged difference in 'design'.  It isn't the 'design' that makes guns or vehicles deadly (as the assumption that the designer lends it intent would presume) but ENTIRELY the actions of the operator.  I'm not sure what you meant by 'since we don't have firearm eucation and licensing coming up for most 16-year old's in this country'.  Perhaps you could explain what you mean.


Not on this thread, sorry - too much gankage already.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Again, you are falling back on the intent of the 'designer' which as ZERO to do with the intent of the user.  The designer does not instill inanimate objects with a 'desire' to 'act' in a given way.  How an object acts, is entirely the decision of the user.  If you accidentally stab your partner in the eye with an ice-pick, he is no less blind than if you accidentally hit him in the eye with birdshot.  It is your INTENT and ACTIONS (both intentional and unintentional) that created the circumstances, not the intent of the designer of your tool.


A designer does not need to instill inanimate objects with a desire to denote a purpose to a tool. Ask any craftsman this and he will tell you, but I'm done ganking the thread with this nonsense.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Sure, you said that they weren't the same thing, a gun was designed for 'killing' (your words) while a car was designed for driving.  You made it clear that the two were somehow different in the degree of care expected in their use.  I keep asking exactly how you arrive at the fact that one should require a greater degree of care.


I would ask you, then, to go find all the excellent drivers out there and give them their deserved firearm and to go find all the crappy drivers out there and remove them of theirs.  Start a thread on guns vs. motor vehicles as weapons and I may join the discussion, however, no more here.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> We learn not to be careless operating tools that are dangerous.  That would be the lesson I hope we would learn.  Many tools we use can hurt us and innocent by-standers, whether it be a shotgun on a hunting trip, a car driving down the road, a jack hammer, or a machine press.  We need to pay attention.


One might also include words, catch-phrases and intent.


----------



## arnisador (Feb 15, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Whether a gun is used as a weapon, a hammer, a paper weight, or as a flower pot, is entirely the decision of the user, not the designer.



True. But the designer is typically an engineer or craftsman, who is directed or otherwise motivated to design a weapon. It is extraordinarily rare for a Smith and Wesson engineer to intentionally optimize a .45 Magnum for use as a flower pot. The design criterion is, Make it blow big holes in people (and related considerations).



> Whether a car is used as a weapon, a transportation device, or as a platform for mating, is entirely the decision of the user, not the designer.



No car is designed to be used as a weapon. (A tank is not a car.) A police car may have a front mount for ramming, but it is principally intended as a vehicle.

You write, "I get annoyed when people presume that a firearm is somehow different than any other tool." Yet, I doubt that as a LEO you carry a toaster in your gun holster, under the theory that tools are interchangeable. Perhaps it's useful to consider the definition of tool:



> A device, such as a saw, used to perform or facilitate manual or mechanical work.
> 
> A machine, such as a lathe, used to cut and shape machine parts or other objects.
> The cutting part of such a machine.
> ...





> 1: an implement used in the practice of a vocation
> 2: the means whereby some act is accomplished



Well, I read those and perceive that tools are intended to be used for certain purposes, and that different tools are intended to serve different purposes. A knife is a general-purpose tool. A gun is a weapon:



> An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
> _Zoology._ A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
> A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.





> 1: any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting; "he was licensed to carry a weapon"



Is a weapon a tool? Yes, but a very specialized one, used to harm or kill members of the animal kingdom.

It's true that the decision to use a weapon is made by the user. But to deny that a gun is intended to kill animals rather than to hold cut flowers is to deny the existence of the profession of engineering, and to make the fact that most LEOs carry guns rather than flower pots a curious coincidence. In other words, it's nonsense.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 15, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> True. But the designer is typically an engineer or craftsman, who is directed or otherwise motivated to design a weapon. It is extraordinarily rare for a Smith and Wesson engineer to intentionally optimize a .45 Magnum for use as a flower pot. The design criterion is, Make it blow big holes in people (and related considerations).


 The designer made it blow big holes in to people?  Hardly.  The only person who blows big holes in to people, is the user.  The designer made it so that it could strike the primer on a projectile, which would then do whatever the user intends.  It's a tool, pure and simple.  'Weapon' is a description of intent of the user.




			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> No car is designed to be used as a weapon. (A tank is not a car.) A police car may have a front mount for ramming, but it is principally intended as a vehicle.


 Intended by 'whom'?  The designer?  Irrelavent.  If the user uses a car as a weapon, it is a weapon.   Laws all over the country recognize this.  Using a car AS a weapon, MAKES a car a weapon.  



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> You write, "I get annoyed when people presume that a firearm is somehow different than any other tool." Yet, I doubt that as a LEO you carry a toaster in your gun holster, under the theory that tools are interchangeable. Perhaps it's useful to consider the definition of tool:


 However, if I use a toaster to bash someones skull in, is it unarmed assault?  No, it's assault with a deadly 'weapon'.  What made it a weapon?  The designer?  No, the user.




			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Well, I read those and perceive that tools are intended to be used for certain purposes, and that different tools are intended to serve different purposes. A knife is a general-purpose tool. A gun is a weapon:


 What makes a 'knife' a weapon?  When the user intends it's use as such.  The designer, again, cannot instill intent in to an inanimate object.  A 'gun' is a weapon when it's user intends it's use as such.  If a 'gun' fires projectiles in to a target, is it then being used as a weapon?  Only assuming you can kill a target.  It is the intent of the user, not the intent of the tool, or the intent of the designer, that makes something a 'weapon'



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Is a weapon a tool? Yes, but a very specialized one, used to harm or kill members of the animal kingdom.


 What decides if an object is to harm a member of the animal kingdom, is the user.  An arrow is a pointy stick, until you intend it to fire in to something.  It is when and ONLY when the user makes the intent to use an object as a weapon, does it become one.  A baseball bat is a baseball bat.  When it's used to play baseball, it's sporting equipment, when it's used to bash someone's head in, it's a weapon.  What decides?  The user.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> It's true that the decision to use a weapon is made by the user. But to deny that a gun is intended to kill animals rather than to hold cut flowers is to deny the existence of the profession of engineering, and to make the fact that most LEOs carry guns rather than flower pots a curious coincidence. In other words, it's nonsense.


 What's nonsense is to instill motives in to inanimate objects.  I've already pointed out that it's anthropomorphism.  A firearm used to shoot targets is not being used as a weapon.  A firearm used to shoot at a person is.  A car being driven down the road is not being used as a weapon, a car being used to run down a pedestrian is.

The term 'weapon' again is a word built around intent.  Moreover, it's all irrelavent to the assertion that one should inherently use more caution while using a 'weapon' than while using a 'tool', based SOLELY on the intent of the designer.  It's absurd.  "Because a car wasn't designed to be a weapon, I don't have to be as cautious with it as I would be if I were driving a 'shotgun' down the road"  The very notion is absurd.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 15, 2006)

You know, I debated posting this in the Study, because I felt it might get a bit contentious, and wander a bit. 

I posted this thread in the Fireing Range, because it deals with a weapon. 

People continue to make the straw man argument that hunting and driving a car a 'similar situations'. Which I have tried very hard to leave unaddressed, for reasons stated. One unstated reason is that the quarry don't drive cars, or carry guns.

People continue to ascribe political motives to my posting of this thread. To which I will say 'Correllation does not equal Causation'. 

Yes, I believe Dick Cheney is the worst President the country has ever had. Yes, we know that Dick Cheney shot a man in the Face. That some are unable to separate my personal belief with the independent fact is not a shortcoming on my part. 

However, were we to examine 'political' motives of this thread, it might be timely to review what some said about the 'hunting' photo of John Kerry, during the last presidential campaign. Much opinion was displayed because Mr. Kerry was not a 'real hunter' because a 'real hunter' would never carry his weapon as displayed in the photograph.

Well, now we have a 'real hunter' who *shot a man in the face. *And that a bleeding heart liberal like me has a zero-tolerance policy about that fact, can only be interpreted by some as 'politics'. 

I did not post this in the Study, because I am not talking politics. My opinion is based on actions and consequences of guns. So, when John Kerry shoots Michael Moore in the face, and I don't call for his license revokation of life, then you can address me as a hypocrite.


----------



## qizmoduis (Feb 15, 2006)

BlueDragon1981 said:
			
		

> Next he did not have a license to hunt .... why is everyone making excuses for his stupid act.



Why?

Didn't you hear?  9-11 changed everything!  A pre 9-11 mindset is pro-terrorist.  Therefore, Cheny is allowed to shoot anybody, whenever he wants.  Otherwise, you support the librul, terrorist agenda.

And Clinton had oral sex with an intern!  And Ted Kennedy drinks a lot!


Seriously though.  Cheney was negligent and careless while using a deadly weapon.  As a hunter (I'm assuming he's undertaken safety training and all that), he should have known better.  He should be dealt with according to the appropriate statutes.  However, I doubt anything will come of this, other than spin from the usual right-wing echo-chamber.  Next thing you know, Cheney will have been shooting at a fleeing, disguised Al-Qaida terrorist who was evilly implanting quail-sized nucular, biological terroristic WMDs into those poor, unsuspecting birds.  He's really a terrorist-fighting hero!


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 15, 2006)

I'm obviously not a fan of the VP, but in this situation, I have some empathy.

When a regular person makes a mistake like this, they go through emotional termoil that one can hardly imagine.  Imagine if you just inadvertently shot one of your friends in the face.  How would you feel?  I would personally be sick for weeks.

On top of feeling like this, the VP is a highly public figure and people are going to jump on that fact and sensationalize this mistake until it is spread across the country, to every corner of the globe, and back again so that where ever he turns, he gets to see this mistake.  

I cannot even imagine how horrible that must be.  

The bottom line, IMHO, is that this was an accident.  They happen.  One man is suffering in the hospital and one man is suffering from guilt that is amplified by all of this hoopla.  I hope that Mr. Wittington recovers from his injuries and I'm almost positive that the VP will learn from this mistake.  

Maybe we need to make laws that require better gun training and hunter safety.  Logically, I can agree with that.  There is another side of this story though and I hope people think about that too.


----------



## Brother John (Feb 15, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The big issue is the failure on both sides of the shot to follow established "common sense guidelines" while hunting.
> Bottom line, it was an accident, probably avoidable, and thankfully no one was killed.


 
Nail on the Head Bob. 
I think that this Should sum up the argument. If there's MORE of an argument it is, I think, because the arguer (is that a word?) doesn't like the VP and is trying to make hay. 

Your Brother
John


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 15, 2006)

Well, it seems that people are seeing the comments I am making as political, when I am trying to ensure they are not. Oh, well. I will say, that I have done my best to keep all of the incredibly obvious, and funny, political jokes out of my post. I have tried to deal with the discharge of a firearm. But, yes, I am a loud mouthed (typist) liberal, so I suppose even the most objective among us can't separate my opinions else where with my opinions here. As I said earlier, imagine that, a liberal with a zero-tolerance policy. 

If I was trying to make 'political hay', there are many items that we know that I have not brought up ... 

Anyhow, here is another hunter voicing an opinion that says much of what I have said.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/13874023.htm



> As a hunter, you never shoot unless youre certain the field of fire is clear of dogs, trucks, farmhouses and 78-year-old lawyers from Austin.
> Likewise, allow me to clear up another misconception:
> It wasnt Whittingtons fault. Virtually the only time getting shot while hunting is your own fault is when you shoot yourself by accident. Or if youre wearing antlers as a joke during deer season.


----------



## Brother John (Feb 15, 2006)

Actually Mike, I was more or less commenting on how much heat and attention an "*accident*" seems to have drawn....not on your words in particular. I'd doubt if it was me and my hunting accident (I've actually never been hunting) it would get more than just a few responses on here.



> It wasnt Whittingtons fault. Virtually the only time getting shot while hunting is your own fault is when you shoot yourself by accident.


 
IF Whittington was crouching low, under some cover, and crossed from where Dick knew he'd gone last....and crossed infront of a hunter (in this case, the VP) seems that'd qualify as 'Whittington's fault'.
I don't know the full facts of the case to be honest, and like I said....I know next to nothing about hunting.

Fishing.... now that I can talk!!

Your Brother
John


----------



## arnisador (Feb 15, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The designer made it blow big holes in to people?


 
The designer made it to be an efficient and effective tool for blowing holes in people. When someone uses it for its intended purpose, the obvious result generally occurs.

Is there a reason we have both guns and toasters? You seem to feel that all tools are interchangeable.



> What's nonsense is to instill motives in to inanimate objects. I've already pointed out that it's anthropomorphism.


 
Since no one appears to be doing that, though, it's probably safe for you to stop pointing it out. 

In a previous post, you wrote:



> And the 'horesless carriage' can make people just as dead [as a gun or bow and arrow], regardless of the alleged difference in 'design'. It isn't the 'design' that makes guns or vehicles deadly


 
I daresay that the difference in design between a gun and a car is not merely 'alleged'. I would suggest that it's real. There is a reason why cars come with steering wheels but guns do not.

I would also say that if the design doesn't make the tool deadly, then again, why would a LEO carry a gun rather than a toaster? After all, the toaster is every bit as deadly...plus, it can make toast! But, perhaps you'll argue that the gun can also toast bread if the user so intends?

I think you've taken the sensible "Guns don't kill people..." slogan to a less-than-sensible extreme.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 15, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Actually Mike, I was more or less commenting on how much heat and attention an "*accident*" seems to have drawn....not on your words in particular. I'd doubt if it was me and my hunting accident (I've actually never been hunting) it would get more than just a few responses on here.
> 
> IF Whittington was crouching low, under some cover, and crossed from where Dick knew he'd gone last....and crossed infront of a hunter (in this case, the VP) seems that'd qualify as 'Whittington's fault'.
> I don't know the full facts of the case to be honest, and like I said....I know next to nothing about hunting.
> ...


 
One of the reasons it is getting so much play is because *everything *Richard Cheney does is political. He is the Vice President of the United States. Some here have argued that the President never gets a vacation, because the Presidency travels with him. Well, certainly that argument must hold true for this Vice President. It is widely acknowledged that he is the most powerful VP in history.

There was a bad political decision made to not release the information as soon as possible. And the White House staff does not have the information to answer the press corps because the Vice President does not care one bit about the press corps.

I think had Mr. Cheney spoken with someone like Dick Morris right after it happened, he would have been councelled to meet with the Sherrif's representative immediately (he did not, he waited til Sunday morning), submit to breathalizer or blood test (he did not), make an immediate statement expressing regret for the accident and hope for Mr. Whittington's speedy recovery (waiting).

Looking back, these steps would obviously been better than the choices they have made. By not addressing these items, people are wondering. But no one seems able to address the questions. 

This accident could very easily become a metaphor for the entire Bush Administration and policy; we had the best intentions, but we screwed up anyhow (assuming one thinks the deficit, Iraq war, Iraq war deaths, no WMD, Terri Schiavo, environmental policies, loss of the 4th Amendment, and many other policies are worse today than they were 5 years ago).

OK ... that is a political post ... I have been trying to avoid that. Failed. 


I do not hunt either. But I sometimes fish at a hunting club. It is a bit spooky to hear the report of a shotgun closeby the trout pond. It is even spookier to hear the shot dropping through the trees, like one of those 'rain sticks' in the nature store. While I am certain all of those hunting are aware of the location of the trout pond, I get nervous. 

I hope the only accidents we can have in fishing require short emergency room visits to get hooks out of earlobes.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Feb 15, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well, it seems that people are seeing the comments I am making as political, when I am trying to ensure they are not. Oh, well. I will say, that I have done my best to keep all of the incredibly obvious, and funny, political jokes out of my post. I have tried to deal with the discharge of a firearm. But, yes, I am a loud mouthed (typist) liberal, so I suppose even the most objective among us can't separate my opinions else where with my opinions here. As I said earlier, imagine that, a liberal with a zero-tolerance policy.
> 
> If I was trying to make 'political hay', there are many items that we know that I have not brought up ...
> 
> ...




Political? YOU?   What were we all thinking? 

How could we think that your motives were driven by anything other than a deep commitment to hunter safety. Just because there are dozens, if not hundreds of hunting accidents in the news each year, and you claim to be an activist in this area, but you have never posted anything regarding hunter safety until now, why would anybody think that your motives were political???


Your "who, me?" defense of your motivation is transparent and obvious to many others, it would seem. You can't hide behind the curtain of "being misunderstood" forever....

And BTW, Cheney deserves whatever jokes are made from this.  A lifetime ban from hunting, no...   That would come from YOUR lack of objectivity.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 15, 2006)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> Political? YOU? What were we all thinking?
> 
> How could we think that your motives were driven by anything other than a deep commitment to hunter safety. Just because there are dozens, if not hundreds of hunting accidents in the news each year, and you claim to be an activist in this area, but you have never posted anything regarding hunter safety until now, why would anybody think that your motives were political???
> 
> ...


 
I would bet that if you looked, you could find some posts of mine concerning hunter safety. I can't be sure of that. But it certainly something I have mentioned more than once in my past. This thread might have something to say http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=292662&postcount=1

But, you are correct, I generally stay out of the 'Firing Range' section because I don't own a gun. Entering into a discussion there is likely to generate a "You can't have an opinion cuz you don't own a gun" response. However, not entering into a discussion does not mean I don't have strongly held positions on them. 

And while there are accidents with firearms all across North America every year, how often is celebrity involved? High profile involvement certainly makes this a good source for discussion.  

Is there some politics in my motivation ... maybe, but the people who referred to me as 'boob' and 'idiot' are seeing, I believe only political motivation. I am trying to keep the political out of my discussion (except the last post).


----------



## Lisa (Feb 15, 2006)

Second Moderator Warning.

_Moderator Note._ 
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-LISA DENEKA
-MT Moderator-


----------



## mrhnau (Feb 15, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> The designer made it to be an efficient and effective tool for blowing holes in people. When someone uses it for its intended purpose, the obvious result generally occurs.
> 
> Is there a reason we have both guns and toasters? You seem to feel that all tools are interchangeable.
> 
> ...



Your posts have been quite humorous on this topic arni  There are a few similarities between guns and cars that need to be observed.

1) they both require a licence (well hunting does anyways)
2) both can kill people when handled incorrectly

Guns are not designed to kill people. They are designed to kill or hurt things. Historically they have been used in war, self-defense, hunting and non-state sanctioned killing. Noone is going to argue this. I don't think its sensible to argue that a gun is not a weapon. We licence people so that they know how to handle dangerous objects with care (note, gun or car). So, these objects are commonly dangerous and can easily result in a death. I don't think we get toaster licencing because its not a frequent cause of death or used as an instrument of destruction. If we have a mad rash of murders involving toasters, maybe one day we will get that kind of training LOL. I -was- taught to not have electrical devices near the tub, but these kind of things are just common sense.


So, while a car is not a weapon, it -can- be used as such. Even when -not- used as a weapon, it can still be dangerous. Guns -can- kill people just as a car can. Mishandling either one will possibly cause death or injury. The two are not too different in that regards. If someone went hunting drunk and shot someone I hope they would be prosecuted in the same fashion as someone driving drunk and injuring someone in a wreck. In the same fashion, someone drunk that injures someone with a toaster should be prosecuted in a similar fashion, regardless if the "weapon" is not typically in your list of weapons. In my opinion, weapon type is kind of irrelevant. Its more a question of intent, which I think was Sgt's point.


BTW, you mentioned that cars are not weapons (w/ exception of tank). I think they can be depending on how used. We have hummers with missiles mounted, we have ww2 jeeps with machine guns mounted (trying to restore one myself  ), we have police cars with shotguns mounted, and simply people who might want to run down an enemy.


On a similar thread, is a plane a weapon? how about a boat? Does that fact that most boats are not military in nature mean all boats are not weapons? The fact that most planes are not military in nature mean planes are not weapons? Planes can be used as weapons (think 9/11). Boats can be used as weapons (think USS Cole). Cars can be used as weapons (think Iraq car bombs, embassy bombings, OKC). Granted, more often than not, its delivering a payload, but I'd argue that a B-52 dropping bombs is a weapon.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Feb 15, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I would bet that if you looked, you could find some posts of mine concerning hunter safety. I can't be sure of that. But it certainly something I have mentioned more than once in my past. This thread might have something to say http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=292662&postcount=1
> 
> But, you are correct, I generally stay out of the 'Firing Range' section because I don't own a gun. Entering into a discussion there is likely to generate a "You can't have an opinion cuz you don't own a gun" response. However, not entering into a discussion does not mean I don't have strongly held positions on them.
> 
> ...



OK....and for the record, I do not own a gun either. I would also not refer to you as a "boob' or "idiot". While I would like to see more "meat" in your 
dismissal of other's arguments, e.g., "straw man" with no elaboration as to how or why, I certainly do not consider you to be an idiot. I am not willing to debate with idiots. That's  what the "ignore" button is for.


----------



## mrhnau (Feb 15, 2006)

Sorry, but another thought Arni...

What has happened is an accident. A gun accidently shot someone. What often happens with a car is an accident. People can die. Sometimes you have an accident with a toaster and it falls in your tub. People can die. Sometimes a screwdriver falls ir moves strangely. People can die. Sometimes a table falls. People can die.

Point being, this is an accident. Even w/out intent most physical objects have the inherant ability to cause harm. Shoot, I get papercuts from time to time! Those objects that are more prone to have accidents or are inherently more dangerous when having accidents are likely to need some form of traning. When dealing with guns, my dad instructed me on how to handle them. I've had a gun since I was 12 and never had an accident. When dealing with cars, I had to take classes on safe driving. I've had several accidents. When dealing with power tools/chain saws, my dad instructed me on how to handle them. I've never had an accident...

alot of times things are just common sense. When they are not, or sometimes you can't control others actions (someone rams you w/ car), you have training, be it in a manual w/ the product or a class/certification.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 15, 2006)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> OK....and for the record, I do not own a gun either. I would also not refer to you as a "boob' or "idiot". While I would like to see more "meat" in your dismissal of other's arguments, e.g., "straw man" with no elaboration as to how or why, I certainly do not consider you to be an idiot. I am not willing to debate with idiots. That's what the "ignore" button is for.


 
The Straw Man argument being raised is that 'one moments carelessness is what caused this accident'. Certainly, we all might experience 'one moments carelessness when driving an automobile'.

A couple of reasons on why I attempt to not take this bait. 

1 - Range - A vehicle must make contact with a person or thing to create damage. A firearm has a greater range with which to make contact with a person or thing. 

2 - Momentum - A vehicle in motion is subject to physical laws that can make preventing impact with a person or thing impossible. Birdshot pellets only acquire momentum on the action of the holder of the firearm.

3 - Multiple Parties - Vehicle accidents often occur with multiple vehicles, with multiple parties taking actions and reactions. With a firearm, because the afore mentioned range and momentum, the responsibility is weighted to the person with greater range and potential energy. 

As one constructs the straw man argument, he will try to account for these factors. But, in so doing he is creating a *dis-similar* situation.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 15, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Sorry, but another thought Arni...
> 
> What has happened is an accident. *A gun accidently shot someone.* What often happens with a car is an accident. People can die. Sometimes you have an accident with a toaster and it falls in your tub. People can die. Sometimes a screwdriver falls ir moves strangely. People can die. Sometimes a table falls. People can die.
> 
> ...


 

The *gun* did not accidently shoot someone. Vice President Cheney accidentally shot someone. 

I'm certain that is what you meant to say.


----------



## mrhnau (Feb 15, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The *gun* did not accidently shoot someone. Vice President Cheney accidentally shot someone.
> 
> I'm certain that is what you meant to say.



I stand corrected


----------



## arnisador (Feb 15, 2006)

I agree that this was principally an accident, though some level of carelessness can probably be attributed to both the Vice President and the person who was shot.

In arnis we are instructed that it is our duty to be aware of where our weapons are in relation to bystanders/other students/etc.; of course, it's also their duty to pay attention for swinging sticks!


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 15, 2006)

I can see the internal memo that goes out in the RNC after one their fundraisers was shot by the VP...

"Quit your slacking and get to work..."

upnorthkyosa

ps - that's a joke...ducks.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Feb 15, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The Straw Man argument being raised is that 'one moments carelessness is what caused this accident'. Certainly, we all might experience 'one moments carelessness when driving an automobile'.
> 
> A couple of reasons on why I attempt to not take this bait.
> 
> ...



1- Range -  A firearm  is typically dangerous over a range of a few hundred yards, even less for a shotgun, as in the case highlighted. If you are drunk or chatting on your cell phone, you could easily cover a range of many miles while directing a 2 ton fast-moving object, all the while having no idea what's going on around you.

2 - Momentum - Yes, birdshot pellets only acquire momentum on the action of the firearm holder. How is this different from a car? If your car is in the habit of driving down the street by itself, you need a mechanic, if not an exorcist. Newton's law does not depend on WHAT is in motion.
At least a car, once it acquires momentum, can still be steered to a great degree by the driver. This makes a hypothetical driver who retains control of his "projectile", say, someone named Ted Kennedy, even more culpable than a mistaken hunter, who cannot steer his projectile away if it is suddenly headed towards danger.

3 - Multiple Parties - Hunting accidents often occur with multiple hunters, with multiple parties taking actions and reactions. (Your statement, I just substituted "hunting/hunters" for "vehicles".) The statement remains valid.
And I would argue that a 2 ton piece of iron travelling upwards of 65 mph has a far greater range and potential energy than any hunting projectile.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 15, 2006)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> 1- Range - A firearm is typically dangerous over a range of a few hundred yards, even less for a shotgun, as in the case highlighted. If you are drunk or chatting on your cell phone, you could easily cover a range of many miles while directing a 2 ton fast-moving object, all the while having no idea what's going on around you.
> 
> 2 - Momentum - Yes, birdshot pellets only acquire momentum on the action of the firearm holder. How is this different from a car? If your car is in the habit of driving down the street by itself, you need a mechanic, if not an exorcist. Newton's law does not depend on WHAT is in motion.
> At least a car, once it acquires momentum, can still be steered to a great degree by the driver. This makes a hypothetical driver who retains control of his "projectile", say, someone named Ted Kennedy, even more culpable than a mistaken hunter, who cannot steer his projectile away if it is suddenly headed towards danger.
> ...


 
As I mentioned, you can construct your straw man argument in such a way as to make 'one moments carelessness' fit the argument. 

Let me break out another way to explain how they are dissimilar. 

How many hunting accidents happen in a year? In Texas, there were 4 fatal hunting accidents in the year 2004, and 25 non-fatal accidents in the year 2004. These accidents occur in a limited hunting season.

My company is one of three major companies that works with automobile accidents. On any given day, Insurance carriers submit well over 5,000 total loss vehicle inspection reports in North America. Those reports account from a bit over 1/3rd of the industry related only to auto accidents that are severe enough to potentially be a total loss.  (my company handled over 1.5 million such requests during our FY '04)

The frequency difference between hunting accidents and auto accidents is another reason why this Straw man argument should be rejected. 


At any time you want to get back to hunting accidents (and it should be an accident free activity, in my opinion), just go right ahead, ok? 

Now, look ... you've gone and got me to gank up this thread more.


----------



## Brother John (Feb 15, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> One of the reasons it is getting so much play is because *everything *Richard Cheney does is political. He is the Vice President of the United States. Some here have argued that the President never gets a vacation, because the Presidency travels with him. Well, certainly that argument must hold true for this Vice President. It is widely acknowledged that he is the most powerful VP in history.


I really, Really think that that's a pretty Big stretch!
Everything R. Cheney does is political? So if he makes a Ham on Rye at midnight for himself, that's a political sandwich? That's a political act?

Also: What makes this VP THE most POWERFUL?
I'd never heard that one. They've all been poweful by virtue of the office.

Your Brother
John


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 15, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> I really, Really think that that's a pretty Big stretch!
> Everything R. Cheney does is political? So if he makes a Ham on Rye at midnight for himself, that's a political sandwich? That's a political act?


 
OK, if the Vice President does not carry the office with him where ever he goes ... can we turn the coversation to the number of days of vacation the President has taken while in office? 

And if the VP choked on that sandwich, you bet it would be a political sandwich.



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> Also: What makes this VP THE most POWERFUL?
> I'd never heard that one. They've all been poweful by virtue of the office.
> 
> Your Brother
> John


 
Constitutionally, the Vice President has very little power. Officially, he will over see the Senate. In the event of a tie vote in the Senate, the Vice President casts the tie-breaking vote.  

As for the power this Vice President has, I would direct you to the Adminstration Energy Policy (scripted by Cheney), the White House Iraq Group (formed by Cheney). Look at the how often the VP visited the CIA in the lead up to the Iraq war (a highly uncommon event). 

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031013/13cheney.htm


----------



## Martial Tucker (Feb 15, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Now, look ... you've gone and got me to gank up this thread more.


You gave this thread it's "momentum", so you're responsible for where it goes!


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 15, 2006)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> You gave this thread it's "momentum", so you're responsible for where it goes!


 
No. We are all responsible for where this thread goes. That is what discussion is all about really. I hope I have sufficiently explained the 'Straw Man' argument. It has been very familiar lately.

I believe, as I mentioned earlier, hunting should be a zero-accident-activity. When uncertain, you don't pull the trigger. In this case, Mr. Cheney was uncertain where Mr. Whittington was. When Mr. Whittington separated from the hunting party, the weapons should have been brought up; further attempts to raise game should have ceased.


----------



## Henderson (Feb 15, 2006)

I know I'm a little late on this one, but, my thoughts are two-fold...

1.  You *NEVER* go down-range without announcing yourself.  Anyone that says otherwise is a fool, has no experience with firearms, or is just plain stupid.

2.  You must *ALWAYS* be 100% sure of your target.  If you can't see it, do not squeeze the trigger.

They are both to blame.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 15, 2006)

Henderson said:
			
		

> I know I'm a little late on this one, but, my thoughts are two-fold...
> 
> 1.  You *NEVER* go down-range without announcing yourself.  Anyone that says otherwise is a fool, has no experience with firearms, or is just plain stupid.
> 
> ...


I agree.


----------



## MHeeler (Feb 15, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I believe, as I mentioned earlier, hunting should be a zero-accident-activity. When uncertain, you don't pull the trigger. In this case, Mr. Cheney was uncertain where Mr. Whittington was. When Mr. Whittington separated from the hunting party, the weapons should have been brought up; further attempts to raise game should have ceased.



I think your argument breaks down here.  How can *ANY* activity be accident-free?  There is never a moment in any individual's life during which s/he is completely risk-free.  Life is inherently risky.  The probabilities of random chance always leave one open to the possibility of accidents.

In a situation where people are handling firearms, the likelihood of greater injury increases _in the event of an accident_.  In this particular case, I think the point is that Mr. Cheney *was* certain at the moment he fired his weapon.  Obviously, he was wrong.  As they say, to err is human.  In any case, in this particular situation, it would be _impossible_ to be certain of every variable at all times.  The moment any one of the hunting group turned his head or blinked, he could not be absolutely certain as to his companions' positions.  He could not be absolutely certain that one of his companions would not stumble into the line of fire unexpextedly.  Etc, etc.  There is a certain risk inherent to every activity.  As soon as this group of hunters began their hunt, each of them accepted the risk inherent to their day of quail hunting.

As an experienced hunter, Mr. Cheney probably *was* certain that nothing was beyond his target, which is why he felt safe to fire.  Granted, I don't know this to be a fact, but to assume otherwise is to accuse him of attempted murder.  Unless someone is prepared to go down that road, the entire discussion is moot.

MH

ps: As this is _MartialTalk_, let's pose a different kind of hypothetical: If a martial arts instructor injured a student/training partner or had a student/training partner get injured during a class, should that instructor then not be allowed to teach martial arts ever again?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 15, 2006)

MHeeler said:
			
		

> I think your argument breaks down here. How can *ANY* activity be accident-free? There is never a moment in any individual's life during which s/he is completely risk-free. Life is inherently risky. The probabilities of random chance always leave one open to the possibility of accidents.
> 
> In a situation where people are handling firearms, the likelihood of greater injury increases _in the event of an accident_. In this particular case, I think the point is that Mr. Cheney *was* certain at the moment he fired his weapon. Obviously, he was wrong. As they say, to err is human. In any case, in this particular situation, it would be _impossible_ to be certain of every variable at all times. The moment any one of the hunting group turned his head or blinked, he could not be absolutely certain as to his companions' positions. He could not be absolutely certain that one of his companions would not stumble into the line of fire unexpextedly. Etc, etc. There is a certain risk inherent to every activity. As soon as this group of hunters began their hunt, each of them accepted the risk inherent to their day of quail hunting.
> 
> ...


 
As soon as Mr. Whittington left the hunting line, all of the guns should have been raised. For Mr. Cheney to be *certain* at the time he pulled the trigger would have demanded that Mr. Whittington had re-joined the hunting line. He had not, therefore, certainty could not be established. The first error occurred when the hunters did not stop their hunt as Mr. Whittington went to retrieve his quarry (where were the dogs?). 

Of course no activity can be 100 % safe. One of the Texas hunting reports from 2004 recorded an accident where the hunter was injured when his dog stepped on the firearm in the boat. We can not ascribe to the canine the act of 'pulling the trigger'. Although, this accident could have been prevented by properly stowing the weapon for transport.

Another accident imaginable could result from an ammunition round behaving outside the norm. It has been decades since I last loaded a shell (used by a friend on the skeet range). It seems to me that a shotgun shell could malfunction. 

So, while my standard is, truly, impossibly high; the circumstances of this weekend past are not beyond that standard. Poor judgement was exercised on the part of the Vice President. The only way to guarantee the recurrance of that poor judgement is to revoke the privilege.


----------



## Brother John (Feb 15, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> OK, if the Vice President does not carry the office with him where ever he goes ... can we turn the coversation to the number of days of vacation the President has taken while in office?
> 
> And if the VP choked on that sandwich, you bet it would be a political sandwich.http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031013/13cheney.htm


OK, first off the Vice President is always the Vice President, no matter where he is. But Not everything that he does is a fulfillment of his political office and responsibilities....therefore he does not drink a "political" can of pepsi. When calling an old friend on the phone to congratulate him on the birth of his first grandson he does not make a political call, he gives a personal one. When he kisses his wife it is not a political kiss.
When he engages in his hobby (hunting perhaps) it is Not a political outting.
When he sneezes, it is not a "Sneeze of Office". 

Then also your argument attempting to compare this hunting trip with an old friend (which had nothing to do with his political office) to the work that President Bush has done in places other than Washington DC.....which IS Presidential work, work directly fulfilling the duties of his office.....Flopped; as most any "Apples to Oranges" comparison will. 

And no, choking on the sandwich wouldn't make the creation of the sandwich a "Presidential act" (or "vice-presidential act" as the case may be), nor does it make it a political sandwich.  I REALLY thought you were joking there! Seriously.
It makes it a politically significant event when an important politicians life is in jeopardy... but it still wouldn't make the thing a "political sandwich".

Sorry man, you've ceased being realistic now and the further you reach in grasping at straws...the more you tip your hand that you are mustering up a fist full of "Political Hay".

Your Brother
John


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 15, 2006)

Clearing brush in a desert is a Presidential Act? Riding a bike is a Presidential Act? Didn't the military almost shoot down a plane, and evacuate the white house over an errant Cessna .... and the President wasn't even informed. 

In the past, I have decried the President taking vacations. He has spent more than 365 days of his five years in office at Crawford, Camp David, or in Maine. Yet, when this point is raised, people refute the point with "He is the Office".

What, then, is the difference with the Vice President? 

To tell you the truth. I would like these guys to be able to take a reasonable vacation - literally - turn off all the trappings of office. I think that would be good for our government. But, C-plus Augustus, can't seem to find 'reasonable' on the scale. I think he is clocking 10 weeks of vacation a year. (That's the act of an alcoholic). 

So, I am kind of in favor of the Veep being able to go play with the birds for a couple of weekends during the year. No press, just a little graft among friends. Except when the vacation turns into a horror story. At that point, the duties of the Vice President of the United States take over. As I recall, he works for me, right? 

Do you think the police would have let you or me grab a good nights sleep before being questioned?


----------



## Brother John (Feb 15, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Clearing brush in a desert is a Presidential Act? Riding a bike is a Presidential Act? Didn't the military almost shoot down a plane, and evacuate the white house over an errant Cessna .... and the President wasn't even informed.
> 
> In the past, I have decried the President taking vacations. He has spent more than 365 days of his five years in office at Crawford, Camp David, or in Maine. Yet, when this point is raised, people refute the point with "He is the Office".
> 
> ...



As for clearing brush, riding a bike and all of that...
*I* never said that *ALL* Pres. Bush does while on those 'vacations' is a Presidential Act. (You said that Everything that the VP does is Political) I am saying, and have said in other discussions on the topic of Bush taking care of business while not in D.C., that he does still take care of business. Those who work to drum up reasons to besmirch President Bush try to make it seem like those trips are just him being lazy and excaping the duties of his office. ((in fact, it seems to me that you just insinuated that his taking things away from D.C. relates to his having been a drinker... kind of a low tac to take, don't you think? Yes or no, it's still innapropriate.)) Instead, important things are still handled while he's been on those trips. I personally think it's probably a good idea to handle the business of running the government away from the special interest marsh-lands of D.C.
NO... Not everything he did was "Presidential", and yes he is always the President.


> Yet, when this point is raised, people refute the point with "He is the Office".
> What, then, is the difference with the Vice President?


You're using the excuses of others on a person who hasn't used them. (me)
I don't refute these actions of his that you are bringing up with "He IS the Office". If your post was directed at me, please don't argue with a point that I didn't use and haven't attempted to make. If that comment was directed elsewhere, please point out to whom....so that you'll make sense.
Otherwise, this whole premise seems like..... how do you say........ a Straw Man argument.
Yeah....that's it. 


> Except when the vacation turns into a horror story. At that point, the duties of the Vice President of the United States take over. As I recall, he works for me, right?


His Personal outting on a weekend ended up being very horrible and unfortunate.... partially his fault, partially the fault of his friend. The "duties of the Vice President" are for when he is doing something that is "Vice-presidential". He wasn't, he was hunting with a buddy and had a horrible accident.
..and no, he doesn't work for you, he works for us..... Every American. I don't see what That has to do with his huntin accident. 
He wasn't "Working" when it happened. It didn't occur in the oval office or in his own office.
It happened in a field.

I will say this, I do think that it should have been announced and explained much more promptly... but in the end, it doesn't impact our day or our government very much that it was delayed. It's just an easy field of political hay. IF IT HAD been handled better and had been announced Right away, I believe you'd still be on here... saying pretty much the same things, but with one less thing to hold up and say "SEE......SEE........!!"

Your Brother
John


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 16, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Actually Mike, I was more or less commenting on how much heat and attention an "*accident*" seems to have drawn....not on your words in particular.


 


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> *Some* here have argued that the President never gets a vacation, because the Presidency travels with him.


 
Well, it seems when I make a general statement, you are interpreting it specifically. I apologize for any misunderstanding. But that is not a 'Straw Man' argument; it is a mis-interpretation. If we search the board a bit, we will find those arguments put forth by our colleagues here. 

As for remarking that the Presidents' inability to find 'reasonableness' is the trait of an alcoholic; please understand that I am an alcoholic, I have been sober for more than 13 years. Identifying the behavior is something I can't escape, because it is a vital part of the 'treatment plan'. Rest assured, even if you feel it is 'low-road', I am not alone in that diagnosis.

As I mentioned, I think these government officials should be allowed some down-time (I supported the Renaissance Weekend for Clinton, and his trips to the Nantucket). 

But, did the shooter receive special treatment because he was the Vice President of the United States? He was not interviewed until more than 14 hours had passed. If that is not special treatment, what is it? 




			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> IF IT HAD been handled better and had been announced Right away, I believe you'd still be on here... saying pretty much the same things, but with one less thing to hold up and say "SEE......SEE........!!"




Lastly, I can't help what you believe I would have done, if we had all heard about this on Saturday evening. I can understand that my political point of view does carry some baggage.

But, I can point you to this entire thread. Look carefully. I have not made (I hope) any jokes about it ... when many others have made it the punch line of the week, including the Adminstration. I have tried to restrain myself from drawing parallels from this accident to the rest of the adminstrations behavior (although some of that has appeared in these later posts). If you want to see that more clearly, look at the newpaper editorial comics ... there are many 'political' items that I have left off the table. 

I think this shooting is about as significant politically as the hummers Clinton got from That Woman, Miss Lewinsky; not very. However, since it was a hunting accident, I believe strongly that the hunting privileges should be revoked.


----------



## Brother John (Feb 16, 2006)

First off Mike, please let me say that I really respect you for having been sober for well over a decade! Seriously. You and I may but heads (or may BE buttheads.... HA!) on this issue or that, but if this is what you've done then it's a credit to your discipline and will beyond the average martial artist.  I've never been hooked on anything beyond C8H10N4O2 (Caffeine) and fast women (both of which can make your heart race). But I've had extensive drug and alcohol counceling/training (being, technically a social worker...though my specific field is Juvenile corrections) and I know that you've really accomplished something.

When you brought this up, when juxtaposed with your strong dislike of President Bush and his administration, I thought you were taking the low road...
I'm still not fully convinced you weren't,   as it really added Nothing to, nor is it even related to, this thread...but if you say that reflexively/compulsively pointing out behavior that _Could_ theoretically be explained away as a feature of an addictive personality..Ok, I won't call you a liar. But that habit would probably come in very cumbersome at dinner parties, I'd think.

OK...back to our debate/discussion:


> If we search the board a bit, we will find those arguments put forth by our colleagues here.


That may be, but I don't agree... not that they're technically wrong. The Executive Office cannot be separated from the man holding the office. BUT: when used in this context, to defend him going to Texas, it's off the mark. In my opinion, with today's technology and the far-reaching capabilities it provides, I think it's very reasonable to take business where you can think clearly and be at your best. If that's his home/ranch in Crawford... so be it.



> But, did the shooter receive special treatment because he was the Vice President of the United States? He was not interviewed until more than 14 hours had passed. If that is not special treatment, what is it?


*Agreed!!*  ((yes....I agreed with you Mike, Fully. now......take a moment to calm your breathing from that shock....  )) But I don't think that that "special treatment" would be or has been particular to THIS administration. I think it's a feature of how those in positions of authority in our society treat those in Higher authority with kid-gloves AT BEST. I don't agree with it, but it's how it goes...no use trying to deny it. But like I said, it's not because he's "Dick Cheney", it's because he's "*Vice President* Dick Cheney". 



> I can't help what you believe I would have done, if we had all heard about this on Saturday evening. I can understand that my political point of view does carry some baggage.


true, you can't help what I believe (one of the features of 'belief', 100% internal and subjective) ....but, given the sheer number of posts & replies you've written out against this President and his administration, in Great detail and with many words, and the fact that you seem to get *Very heated* concerning it....and currently seem to be pretty 'unreasonable' about it....I really don't think that my postulate is far off the mark. 
And: By it's very nature....Anyone's "Political Point of View" carry's a great deal of baggage. Some set the baggage down for a bit to have a conversation, some swing it about like a cudgel. I actually think you may be somewhere in between... but you do do your share of cudgel swingin, in my book. From time to time, and probably on a much lesser scale, so have I. It's one of those reasons our culture has that saying about the things you shouldn't discuss at the dinner table. 



> I can point you to this entire thread. Look carefully. I have not made (I hope) any jokes about it


Ok... I didn't 'look carefully', I kind of willy-nilly zipped down the scroll-bar and happened upon (randomly) one of your replies, which you'd written in the 6 O'clock hour of the 13th... Here'tis:



> Silly me. I am talking about hunter safety. Discharging a firearm into your colleague.


No. You weren't making jokes about it; but you get darned snide and sarcastic...
I'd rather you did try to be funny than rude. I'm no saint or angel myself (ref: "Sneeze of Office"), but I'll admit it. I rather think that debates like this could use more levity than snideness. (snideness.....someone look that up...)


> I have tried to restrain myself from drawing parallels from this accident to the rest of the adminstrations behavior (although some of that has appeared in these later posts).


As to your restraint, it failed...I think you said so yourself; and in that failure your animosity fueling this thread shown through clearly. (animosity toward the administration and anyone that supports it/agrees with it... Ref: the thread to the effect of "is anyone STILL a republican"...or something like that.)


> If you want to see that more clearly, look at the newpaper editorial comics ... there are many 'political' items that I have left off the table.


I hardly seek truth or a social barometer in the 'comics'. The comics that get published are there to support the views of the papers management and owners. *I don't believe in a generally unbiased media at all.* (not saying "_left-leaning_" nor "_right-leaning_"....but I do believe BIAS is the rot that spreads throughout the media's barrel of apples, in this country and others) AND: The comics, generally, are put there to pin-point contraversy like a pressure point (HEY...a martial arts reference, and on Martial Talk no less...wow) and stir people up. It sells papers, period. I turn to the funnies for a laugh, or a warm fuzzy (family circus has more meaning now that I'm a father of two)...but not a guide on political sentiment. 

Besides: pointing out that you _COULD_ have done more or done worse, doesn't mean that you didn't do bad at all.... just that you could have done worse. It'd be like having a person being sentenced for a murder conviction and his lawyer pleading for leniency because..."He could have done Worse! He could have murdered 9 people instead of just two... so have mercy."



> I think this shooting is about as significant politically as the hummers Clinton got from That Woman, Miss Lewinsky; not very.



Well....one DID happen Repeatedly and wasn't just "delayed" in being released, but was covered up for a long time and lied about on many occasions.... even under federal testimony and to the Face of America as a whole. ONE happened repeatedly IN the OVAL OFFICE, while the President WAS acting as President...ie; on the job when he got the 'job', once happening while he was on the phone to the Pentagon and once while on the phone to the UN, the other happened on a weekend outing with an old friend in a field. One was, by a great many people's standards, extremely immoral and he desperately tried to sweep it under the rug in dishonest and other immoral ways ...while the other one was an accident that was deeply regretted and didn't require a special investigation and damning evidence to finnaly uncover the truth.
I don't think that Lewinsky was accidentally 'in the way' when that gun went off., and I don't think that Mr. Clinton didn't know where she was; neither were the repeated and emphatic lies under oath and on TV, and no doubt to his wife, accidental. OR when he asked others to lie for him....etc. etc. 
But if these are the things that don't seem "*too different*" from a weekend hunting accident between two old men in a field, based on confusion and poor judgement...then simply released too late....but was released in full...
I'd Hate to see what you think would be "exactly the same". 
wow...



> However, since it was a hunting accident, I believe strongly that the hunting privileges should be revoked.


Like I said, that may be. I really don't know and don't care... I'm not against nor for hunting. I am, however, all for the follow through of the law... and think that IF that's what would happen to your or me, it Should happen to him. But like we both agreed upon before, it probably wouldn't...being as how he's the VP. (same for Any VP)

Honestly Mike, I think it's kind of funny or odd that you're wasting this much keyboard time on this matter. Seeing as how you like to highlight and emphasize the blunders or mistakes or whatnot of this administration... seems like they hand you enough Real Hay without you needing to inflate this issue MUCH bigger than it really is....
a hunting accident between two old men, where they both shared in the fault.

Your Brother
John


----------



## MHeeler (Feb 16, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> As soon as Mr. Whittington left the hunting line, all of the guns should have been raised. For Mr. Cheney to be *certain* at the time he pulled the trigger would have demanded that Mr. Whittington had re-joined the hunting line. He had not, therefore, certainty could not be established. The first error occurred when the hunters did not stop their hunt as Mr. Whittington went to retrieve his quarry (where were the dogs?).



I think you misunderstood my point...or, more likely, I failed to clearly explain my point.  I meant to say that *certainty* only exists in the mind.  One can never truly establish certainty in any realistic setting.  Reality simply does not allow for it.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Of course no activity can be 100 % safe. One of the Texas hunting reports from 2004 recorded an accident where the hunter was injured when his dog stepped on the firearm in the boat. We can not ascribe to the canine the act of 'pulling the trigger'. Although, this accident could have been prevented by properly stowing the weapon for transport.
> 
> Another accident imaginable could result from an ammunition round behaving outside the norm. It has been decades since I last loaded a shell (used by a friend on the skeet range). It seems to me that a shotgun shell could malfunction.



Glad to see we agree on something. :asian: 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, while my standard is, truly, impossibly high; the circumstances of this weekend past are not beyond that standard. Poor judgement was exercised on the part of the Vice President. The only way to guarantee the recurrance of that poor judgement is to revoke the privilege.



By your own admission, your standard is unrealistic.  Still, I DO agree with you that errors were made during Mr. Cheney's hunting trip.  I think that should be obvious to anyone...well, anyone who can remain objective and use a little common sense.  However, if you mean to use one instance of "poor judgement" as a criterion for revokation of a privilege, absolutely no one would ever be allowed to hunt again.  (And, if you expand that rule, then none of us would be allowed to do ANYTHING ever again.)  As humans, we ALL tend to lapse into poor judgement every now and then.  No one is immune this.  As I said earlier, to err is human.  Expectations of completely error-free activity simply don't take into account our own human nature.

Thanks,
MH


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 16, 2006)

I must admit, I have not read all ten pages of this discussion so I apologize if I am raising an issue that was already discussed.

I heard that Mr. Cheney recently admitted on Fox News that he had a beer at lunch that day before they went hunting. 

My father-in-law is a criminal defense attorney, and he commented that that is EXACTLY the comment that his clients make when they are accused of a crime, and later alcohol proves to be a significant factor in the situation.  They always start out by trying to downplay the drinking, and make it seem insignificant.

Sort of makes you wonder, why the 14 hour delay in contacting law enforcement?  Maybe these guys had been drinking, perhaps even during the hunt, and they needed time for the alcohol to leave their systems.  

While most would agree that the use of alcohol with firearms and hunting is extremely irresponsible, anyone with any experience hunting knows that it is too often a reality.

It will be interesting to see how this situation develops.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 16, 2006)

And in all honesty, I wonder if he's supposed to have any alcohol whatsoever given he's likely on heart medication.  For just about everyone I know who is on heart meds, alcohol is contraindicated.  This might have affected his judgement more so than one beer might have for the average Joe.

I wonder how many his buddy had?


----------



## kenpojujitsu (Feb 16, 2006)

_"A closed mind is the enemy of common sense"_

_YOu should probably heed your own advice in this situation._


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 16, 2006)

kenpojujitsu said:
			
		

> _"A closed mind is the enemy of common sense"_
> 
> _YOu should probably heed your own advice in this situation._


 
Care to explain your thought here?


----------



## Rick Wade (Feb 16, 2006)

I haven't read the rest of this thread but I did see a bumper sticker today that said 

"I would rather hunt with Dick Cheney than Ride with Ted Kennedy."

V/R

Rick


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 16, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Honestly Mike, I think it's kind of funny or odd that you're wasting this much keyboard time on this matter. Seeing as how you like to highlight and emphasize the blunders or mistakes or whatnot of this administration... seems like they hand you enough Real Hay without you needing to inflate this issue MUCH bigger than it really is....
> a hunting accident between two old men, where they both shared in the fault.
> 
> Your Brother
> John


 
Well, John, one of the reasons is that througout this weekend, my back has been acting up, and I was unable to get out of bed Saturday, Sunday or Monday. A laptop, a wireless card, and a bucket of time on my hands. I've also been pretty close to home on Tuesday and Wednesday with my back, and a sick dog. 

There is an awful lot in your post that we could address, but much would be spinning wheels. But let me add this. You mention a comment of mine was snide, sarcastic and rude. 

Absolutely. I plead guilty. But, please take a look at sgtmac_46's comments preceeding that comment. At least three times he attempted to draw me into a discussion on auto accidents. At first I ignored it. Then I explained why I would not address it. Then he challenged me on that. Then someone (not sgtmac_46) asked for a clarification, which I provided, which he challenged. 

So, yes, I was exasperrated.

Fair enough.

Personally, I think the whole episode is representative if the adminstration ... Shoot First ... sort it out later ... Iraq, Tax Cuts, Energy Policy, Environmental Policy. But, I haven't argued that.

I have argued that a son-of-a-***** that shoots someone while hunting deserves to have their hunting privileges revoked for life. Not the least because, someday I may be in the woods while they are hunting. 

I also think that Cheney was probably lit up like a Christmas tree. In his youth, he had two instances of Driving While Intoxicated. I think he is a drunk that uses his hunting weekends to binge.

I think the Secret Service, by prohibiting the local law enforcement from interviewing the members of the hunting party on Saturday night, commited an act, that if it is not criminal (obstruction), it should be. Hell, are the Secret Service Law Enforcment Officers? 

Knock yourselves out .... http://www.cagle.com/news/CheneyShoots/main.asp 

But, I am not talking about that .... I just think he should not be able to hunt again.


P.S.  Concering the Vice President's negligent licensing ... he did not have the correct upland bird stamp for his hunting license ... the ranch owner ... Ms. Armstrong is the former commissioner of Texas Parks and Wildlife. It is also criminal that she would allow a hunt to take place on her property without appropriate licensing ... SHE  should have known.


----------



## Martial Tucker (Feb 16, 2006)

:deadhorse


----------



## kenpojujitsu (Feb 16, 2006)

I saw a great bumpersticker tonight:

"I's still rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than riding with Ted Kennedy".


----------



## kenpojujitsu (Feb 16, 2006)

"I think the Secret Service, by prohibiting the local law enforcement from interviewing the members of the hunting party on Saturday night, commited an act, that if it is not criminal (obstruction), it should be. Hell, are the Secret Service Law Enforcment Officers? "

Another loe put out by the democrats and the left wing media.
The Secret Service offered at the time of the accident to make the VP available for questioning.  It was the local law enforcement who said they would wait until the next morning.  

Cheney himself encouraged the witnesses to tell the story.  Even asked one of them to take the story to the press.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Feb 16, 2006)

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> I haven't read the rest of this thread but I did see a bumper sticker today that said
> 
> "I would rather hunt with Dick Cheney than Ride with Ted Kennedy."
> 
> ...


 
I like that! Politically, I cannot stand Cheney, but I really, really have a problem with the way Kennedy got off.

Regarding this thread: like I wrote upthread, this sounds like a "mutual mistake" type circumstance and we will probably never know for sure what truly happened. However, if the injured man recovers, it really is not, IMO, a major issue.

My feeling is the VP and his friend probably screwed up, but this is not at the same level (or even within 100 miles of it) of Sen. Kennedy's actions that night at Chappaquidick, which, IMO, demonstrated moral turpitude rather than the carelessness of a hunting accident.

If Sen. Kennedy stands up and "demands answers" from the Vice-President, I think I will be sick.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 17, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> My feeling is the VP and his friend probably screwed up, but this is not at the same level (or even within 100 miles of it) of Sen. Kennedy's actions that night at Chappaquidick, which, IMO, demonstrated moral turpitude rather than the carelessness of a hunting accident.
> 
> If Sen. Kennedy stands up and "demands answers" from the Vice-President, I think I will be sick.


I completely agree.  Kennedy has been a pockmark on the face of the Democratic party long enough.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 17, 2006)

kenpojujitsu said:
			
		

> Another loe put out by the democrats and the left wing media.
> The Secret Service offered at the time of the accident to make the VP available for questioning. It was the local law enforcement who said they would wait until the next morning.


 
I'ld love you to source this claim. Everything I have read has been contrary to that, and on account that it calls me a liar.I look forward to your response.


----------



## Brother John (Feb 17, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Kennedy has been a pockmark on the face of the Democratic party long enough.


Yes!
I'm not a Democrat, true, but I see ALL of our elected officials as working for every American of every stripe. I think that there are probably very good, motivated and intelligent Young Democrats who need to get a chance to step up and get to work... but Dead Weight like Kennedy are pretty much just taking up space. I'd bet the party would see new strength if they shrugged him and some Like him, off.
I feel the same way about members of Both parties by the way.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Feb 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well, John, one of the reasons is that througout this weekend, my back has been acting up, and I was unable to get out of bed Saturday, Sunday or Monday. A laptop, a wireless card, and a bucket of time on my hands. I've also been pretty close to home on Tuesday and Wednesday with my back, and a sick dog.


WOW.... when it rains it pours huh? You and your dog, both down! That's no good. Sorry to hear about your infirmities.


> There is an awful lot in your post that we could address, but much would be spinning wheels.


Yes. It didn't think you'd be able to argue with much of what I said. Arguing against fact and logic does make one spin ones wheels.
But you gave some of the issues your best effort anyway, so lets look at those.
((I must be Pretty bored too, seeing as how this thread SHOULD have been over a LONG long time ago. Now it's degenerated to the point that we are talking about how we are talking about it.  ha!!  As long as we both realize that that's what we are doing I guess.))


> Absolutely. I plead guilty. But, please take a look at sgtmac_46's comments preceeding that comment. At least three times he attempted to draw me into a discussion on auto accidents. At first I ignored it. Then I explained why I would not address it. Then he challenged me on that. Then someone (not sgtmac_46) asked for a clarification, which I provided, which he challenged.  So, yes, I was exasperrated.


So I guess your apology for it is: "Well, he started it."
T'sokay, I've used that'n myself. 
Personally I can understand why you'd find it exasperating to defend some of the points you're trying to make. 


> Personally, I think the whole episode is representative if the adminstration ... Shoot First ... sort it out later ... Iraq, Tax Cuts, Energy Policy, Environmental Policy. *But, I haven't argued that.*


:lol:  You Just DID Mike. 
ok, that's funny. 


> I have argued that a son-of-a-***** that shoots someone while hunting deserves to have their hunting privileges revoked for life. Not the least because, someday I may be in the woods while they are hunting.


Not my concern, like I've said. But I will say that I don't think having an accident makes a person a "SOB", careless or wreckless or something like that? sure. I do think it's a pretty low thing to be calling his mother names just because he shared the blame with another fella in a hunting accident. 
((BTW: Bob's said that we're not supposed to use those ***** to replace swear words, just to type what we type and let the sensor....thingie....pick it up. Guess it's against policy to use those cussing/replacement ...thingies.))


> I also think that Cheney was probably lit up like a Christmas tree. In his youth, he had two instances of Driving While Intoxicated. I think he is a drunk that uses his hunting weekends to binge.


Is there ANY sign that he's had any drinking problems as an adult or even w/in the last 20-30 years of his life??? I don't think I've heard of them. Seems to me that you're making something up... infact, making a great deal up. Calling people a "drunk" and saying that their hobby is nothing more than an excuse to 'binge' is pretty darn inflamatory and a *LONG* stretch. 
As you've said of others, I'd LOVE to see how you back this up by siting evidence or sighting sources. Otherwise I (and perhaps the secret service) would LOVE to know how you know so much about the behind the scene's goings on of VP Cheyney's private hunting expeditions.....
no, really.


> I think the Secret Service, by prohibiting the local law enforcement from interviewing the members of the hunting party on Saturday night, commited an act, that if it is not criminal (obstruction), it should be. Hell, are the Secret Service Law Enforcment Officers?


Again, you know all about the behind the scenes stuff!  That's so cool. OR did you just read what other people are "saying" went on, when even they might not Really know...?...and then filling in the gaps with the worst case scenario possible because, well, he's Dick Cheney after all. What he's done (or those who work with him) (in any issue) MUST be bad!...possibly illegal!!!
Pretty typical, I think (not of him, of leftist thinking).



> Knock yourselves out .... http://www.cagle.com/news/CheneyShoots/main.asp
> 
> But, I am not talking about that .... I just think he should not be able to hunt again.


:lol::rofl:
You did it again!!! You provided some funny little cartoons for us to go to ((to better understand the truth, because everyone knows that's what Cartoons do....inform)) and then say that "But, I am not talking about that..."
You Just DID!!!
You crack me up Mike. I think you're doing it on purpose. 
(but I'm not talking about that...)

Top O' the Mornin too ya!!!

Your Brother
John


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 17, 2006)

John,

Thanks for noticing that in the last post, I did start to raise some of the 'political arguments'. It was intended as Irony. We are being told that this is beating a dead horse, so I thought I would throw those things in now ... as this thread is apparently winding down. 

And, as you have challenged my posts as partisan political attacks, how can I say they are not without pointing out what would be a partisan political attack. Please go check how many times I raised these points in the first 50 or 60 posts of this thread. 

Oh, and I typed son-of-a-*****, and Bob's profanity filter changed my ***** to something eles. 

Just to clear up a couple of points.

Calling Dick Cheney a drunk is an unsupported supposition on my part. Two DWI's from 30 years ago is the only clue I have. Yes, a stretch, but not an impossibility; He has never sworn off alcohol, as has Dear Leader.

According to reports I have seen, Deputy Sherrif Sanmiguel did attempt to enter the Armstrong Ranch on Saturday evening, and was turned away by the Secret Service. So, it is not speculation on my part about the 'behind the scenes' activities of the Veep's vacation. 


http://mediamatters.org/items/200602150014


> On February 14, _The New York Times_ reported that Sheriff Ramon Salinas III "said the Secret Service called him shortly after the shooting occurred" and that Salinas sent chief deputy Gilbert San Miguel "to the Armstrong Ranch that night. He said Mr. Sanmiguel interviewed Mr. Cheney and reported that the shooting was an accident."
> 
> 
> But the _Times'_ February 14 report conflicted with other news reports from that day, which indicated that a law enforcement official had been barred from the Armstrong Ranch the night of the shooting. _The Washington Post_ reported on February 14:Local law enforcement officials did not interview Cheney until Sunday morning, about 14 hours after the shooting, in an agreement worked out between the Secret Service and Kenedy County Sheriff Ramon Salinas III. Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren said *at least one deputy was turned away shortly after the shooting *because security personnel at the ranch were not aware of the agreement between the sheriff and the Secret Service.​


So, if I am 'filling in the gaps', I am doing it based on actual news reports. And not pulling these statements out of my ***. 

And, lastly, thanks for the concern ... my back is doing much better. My dog had her leg amputated yesterday.


----------



## arnisador (Feb 17, 2006)

Martial Tucker said:
			
		

> :deadhorse


 
We need one of these with a lawyer...or at least a quail.

I continue to see criticism of both men...one for shooting when the path wasn't clear (and shooting level rather than up), and the other for failing to make his presence known. The WSJ had an article that obliquely but effectively made this point.

Full agreement that Sen. Kennedy is a liability for the Democrats at this point.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 17, 2006)

***************************
Thread Locked pending Admin review.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Super Moderator-
***************************


----------



## Seig (Feb 20, 2006)

Upon review, this thread will remain locked. If you wish to discuss the political ramifications of this, keep it in the Study, where this is already being discussed. 
SEIG
MT OPS ADMIN


----------

