Bear Hunter Shoots Hiker in Washington State

Craig, I think you're missing the point that those who are calling for something to be done are trying to make. If you read almost every one of these posters' words, you will notice that no one is saying that hunting should be banned. As I personally wrote in my first response here I don't enter this discussion to debate animal rights. That's what so many of the hunters here are missing. What all of us are repeatedly trying to say is that it's the SAFETY that is the issue. No one should have to fear, in any sense of the word, for their life when going out into the woods. It is, as Nia insisted, 100% the responsibility of the hunters to ensure that no one has any need to fear them. And that includes giving up hunting if that safety and peace-of-mind cannot be ensured.

Funny that, in this day and age, Americans still cling to the idea that the right to bear arms is undeniably a right (why? Ask yourself that. Why is it a right? Why do you, personally, deserve to carry a gun? By this reasoning, since carrying arms is a fundamental right, like eating and free speech, then of course criminals have a right to bear arms, too), whereas driving, which is much more important in terms of today's daily needs, is still considered a privilege. It's funny, too, that "the right to bear arms" is automatically construed as "the right to hunt". Few people seem to have stopped to examine why the original right was instituted in the first place. And funniest of all is that, among all the richest and most "developed" countries in the world, the richest and most vocal about rights, America, is also the most dangerous and most likely to get you killed by people flailing guns around. I have never heard of anyone I know getting threatened with or killed by a gun in any of the other richer countries in the world (I won't mention less "developed" countries). No one.

Now if you just assume that everyone else in the world is stupid, well, there really is no use in continuing the discussion, is there? Our point of view would just be flotsam anyway. But if you assume that other people in the world have considered the gun issue very carefully, then you have to admit that both very strictly controlling the use of guns and completely changing the society's attitudes toward them has made a significant difference in people's safety. If you honestly do believe that people's safety comes first then don't you think that listening to what other people have to say about the matter bears at least a little merit?

Sometimes I feel as if I am having to listen to a big baby squealing because I am trying to take the kitchen knife away from it. The baby thinks I don't want it to ever use knives, whereas what I am simply trying to do is make sure the baby knows what it is doing and can safely handle a knife. No one wants the baby to get killed, right? (though I really wonder about that in this crowd).

============

Nia brought up an important point while I was still writing this post. She mentioned "community". That is the key concern here. If a hunter were just out there alone, with the WIld West and endless frontier (which never existed) to buffer the reach of his bullets then there would be no need for this debate. But it isn't so. There are millions of people about. And the hunter lives within that community. Therefore measures to ensure safety are paramount.

I'm all for youngsters learning how to handle guns, but as a practical suggestion, would it not be reasonable (commonsense even) to keep those below 18 years old (say) to ranges at gun clubs unless they are being supervised by someone who has passed an instruction certificate?

That way, you'd ensure the animals were killed cleanly, and hikers wouldn't get shot at all.

Allowing a 14 year old to go 'hunting' (I use the word loosely) unsupervised on public land with a full bore rifle seems to be an accident waiting to happen.

I hope someone will post back on this thread when we get the outcome of the legal proceedings ensuing from this tragedy.

"Is one man's "right" to hunt greater than another's right to breathe?"

Show me who I've harmed. Show me who anyone I know has harmed.
To equate the two is nonsense, one is not exclusive of the other. Driving is more dangerous to society than hunting. Is my right to drive greater than another's right to breathe?

"p.s. Did I say ban? No."

I realize you're not calling for a ban. But relegating my ability to hunt food to "privilege" status does not appeal to me, thank you.

"But the reality is that we live in a community and are effected by the actions of everyone. When a few idiot backpackers fail to tend their fire properly we all face greater restrictions on generating heat in the wilderness even though none of "us" was at fault. This is good and necessary to protect the wilderness."

This is the law of the lowest common denominator. I see it in my local mountains nearly every summer. Some drunk jackass is playing with matches and burns the forest down. So the forests get closed. (I love the idea of "closing" the "wilderness".)
But I don't play with matches…Justice, right?

Now some fool with a weapon kills a hiker while "hunting" bear.
What exactly does this have to do with me? Well, I'm hearing a lot of angst towards hunters and many calls for greater regulation…
But it wasn't me.

Do not lump me or those I know in with the lowest common denominator, thanks.

"…America, is also the most dangerous and most likely to get you killed by people flailing guns around."

Yeah, I was just out on the street waiving mine at my neighbor because he took my parking space.
Come on Miguel…flailing our guns around? Statements like this are exactly what tick me off every time this argument comes up. Own a gun = public menace/psychopath

You're right on, Rog. What a kid is doing alone in the woods "hunting" is beyond me. His parents (and/or whoever the rifle was registered to) should be having a fine day in court.

Come on folks, while the death in this case is surely tragic, I think a far more appropriate "public safety" topic to get all worked up about would be texting while driving. Let's see if we can find a cool statistic on how many peace loving backpackers like myself were killed en-route to hiking by someone on a Sidekick.
Oh, sorry, negligence behind the wheel is so common it's not even newsworthy.
Ahhh, but gun accidents….

To be fair, the original report said the 14 y/o was acompanied by an adult. Of course, this may have been the kids older brother, with no more sense than his younger sibling. If I was accompanying a youngster with a scoped rifle, I'd be sure to have a pair of spotting binoculars with me so I could check what he was about to pop at.

I generally dislike rules and excessive regulation, but when it comes to guns and cars….

Craig wrote:

"Come on folks, while the death in this case is surely tragic, I think a far more appropriate "public safety" topic to get all worked up about would be texting while driving. Let's see if we can find a cool statistic on how many peace loving backpackers like myself were killed en-route to hiking by someone on a Sidekick.
Oh, sorry, negligence behind the wheel is so common it's not even newsworthy."

Two points:

1) One doesn't usually make the argument that (b) is much more of problem than (a), if (a) is not a problem.

2) In case you misse it, here in California using a cell phone while driving in anything other then hands-free mode is illegal. You should consider this an honerous infrigement on my free speech rights since I've never killed any one with my car while texting on a cell phone. Never mind if the law might save your life.

Oh, sorry, negligence behind the wheel is so common it’s not even newsworthy.

Of course I agree with you on this. Who said anything about cars not being the worst killer out there? But we’re not talking about cars and drivers, are we? We’re talking about the consequences of that woman getting killed during a hunting accident. and what responsibility needs to be taken for her death. Sorry if I am getting a little shrill about this, but I’ve had a family member killed by someone with a gun (notice I still haven’t called for banning guns, right?), and have myself been held up at gun point (not that I am equating hunting with premeditated murder!), and so feel very strongly that stern regulation is extremely important.

Come on Miguel…flailing our guns around? Statements like this are exactly what tick me off every time this argument comes up. Own a gun = public menace/psychopath

Goodness grief, Craig. Do you fail to recognize paraphrasing? I feel it is better that people talk about this important issue and get ticked off, than to leave it silent and allow the mess to continue. And people to get killed.

But I think perhaps I should back up my statements with some proof. So here it is: a report from the WHO on number of worldwide deaths due to violence. (warning: this is a pdf file and for some people it might make for a heavy download) Please refer to page 322, Table 10A, “Firearm-related mortality, by manner of deatha and country, most recent year available between 1990 and 2000b”. Scroll down through the countries and finally take a look at the United States.

The three highest numbers:

United States:
Total gun-related deaths: 30,419
Deaths by homicide: 11,802
Deaths by suicide: 17,432
Deaths unintentional: 866
Rate/ 100,000 people: 11.3

(the next highest country)
France
Total gun-related deaths: 2,184
Deaths by homicide: 170
Deaths by suicide: 2,386
Deaths unintentional: 68
Rate/ 100,000 people: 5.0

Thailand
Total gun-related deaths: 2,434
Deaths by homicide: 2,184
Deaths by suicide: 158
Deaths unintentional: 68
Rate/ 100,000 people 4.2

Very noticeably absent from the report is Brazil, which supposedly has one of the highest gun-related death rates in the world. You also have to consider how many countries governments choose to hide true statistics to present a better face to the world (Japan is one country, I know).

Still, the numbers of gun-related deaths in the United States far outstrips that of any other country. If these numbers don’t reveal a problem, I don’t know what does…

How come france has more gun-suicides than total gun related deaths?

Looking at suicide rates ity seems Thailand is a happier place to live. Wonder when the last Buddhist pilgrim got gunned down in his bright orange robes being mistaken for an Orang Utan.

What your stats also show is that in the states, out of every 100,000 deaths 5 will be gun suicides, 4 will be gun homicides, and every year, someone will get shot unintentionally.

Hikers are pretty unlikely to get shot, but much more likely to die of exposure, falling, impaling themselves on ice axes or walking poles etc etc.

Just injecting a sense of proportion, not dismissing this incident as unimportant. The thing about it is, the more common causes of death I list are accidents and where negligence or stupidity is involved, it is that of the hiker, not a third party.

The shooting is what in Scotland's legal system would be prosecuted as a culpable homicide.

I was wondering the same thing, Rog. Had no idea about these statistics until I looked them up a little earlier. That's an awful discrepancy between homicide and suicide. Perhaps it's all the wine the French drink? With butter? And the lack of proper breakfasts (I mean croissants with marmalade and coffee and that's it?) ? You notice that the Brits and Germans seem to be fine with all their beer drinking. (^J^)/"

The Thais wouldn't even consider a joke about their priests funny in the least. And Orang Utans live in Malaysia, which is Moslem. But it may just be all those pi$$ed off gamblers who lost all their money in the cockfights. Which is strange, too. Thailand is renowned as a land of peace-loving, very gentle people (by the way the "Thai" in "Thailand" means "free"), so these statistics really took me off guard.

I'd guess most of the thai homicides are down to fueding over bad marriages between families. Foreigners are pretty safe in Thailand, though there were the two brit women murdered by the p*rn crazed fishermen a few years ago.

In the states, the big cities account for most homicides, and despite the rather high rate of unintentional shootings; 86 per year, in a population of what, 250 million is still pretty low considering the level of gun ownership compared to other forms of culpable homicide like dangerous driving etc.

"I see no moral difference between fishing and hunting. If my dad was a hunter I probably would be to. Instead we fished. So it goes."

Kurt Vonnegut would be proud.

"Funny that, in this day and age, Americans still cling to the idea that the right to bear arms is undeniably a right (why? Ask yourself that. Why is it a right? Why do you, personally, deserve to carry a gun? By this reasoning, since carrying arms is a fundamental right, like eating and free speech, then of course criminals have a right to bear arms, too),"

You could write a book about this subject. But , to keep it simple:
1. It is an inalienable right, meaning no one, no governing body has the power and authority to infringe upon it. period. Only war can take it away.
2. Armed citizens is part of the checks and balance system our government is (was) based upon. In other words its a check to the national military.
3. Though it isnt spelled out because 18th century men weren't 20th century lawyers – the 2nd amendment was/is clearly understood to include the right to hunt, and the right to self defense.
4. criminals had always had the right to bear arms as well, until very recently.
5. "Why do you, personally, deserve to carry a gun?"
a better question to ask is "Why DONT I deserve the right"
In other "developed" countries your government fears you so it took that right away. Sure, most people might of went along willingly but people had the tendency to overthrow their governments in the last 100 years. Also many other developed countries are lacking in game lands making living off the land more difficult.
Lastly I invite all anti gun persons to come to America and personally experience your utopia – a Maximum security prison. No guns allowed! Not even a sharp object like a pencil or a weapon like a belt is too be found anywhere!
Pure social engineering at its best. Tell us all about your weekend at this violence free gun free haven!

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.

Brad Maynard wrote: "See ya on the trail !
when ya come out of your safe room that is!"

My sole point in posting the statistics for my state was to debunk the statements being made here that a hiker should know when hunting is allowed are in the area he or she will be hiking. If most states are like Maryland (and I suspect they are) then it is virtually impossible to expect the state, local, and BLM lands to be entirely free of guns at almost any time of year. While incidents like the one in the story which started this thread are rare, to even suggest that some onus be placed on an individuals using those lands to 'stay out of the line of fire' is impractical.

I don't know what most peoples' experience here is but in times of heavy hunting (deer, turkey, bear), I will often hear extensive gunfire out there in the woods, for which hunting cannot be the primary purpose. I suspect that contributing to this is the fact that private lands abut so closely the public lands in Maryland that there are many individuals 'blurring the lines' between the two. During these times, public lands are absolutely crawling with hunters and it makes hiking during this period an unnerving experience I try to avoid. I don't know whether to attribute the fairly low lack of accidental shootings to training, preparation, and execution by the hunters or just the unlikelihood of a single individual being struck by a single bullet, due only to small odds. I will say, however, that it only takes one round to zip through the leaves near your person accompanied by that unmistakable, completely unmanning sound of splitting air to make you think it more dumb luck you were not struck, rather than skill on the part of the person who discharged that weapon.

Are all hunters like this? No, and no one on this thread is saying that they are. Are a significant enough portion of hunters like this so as to require tighter rules put in place to reduce this percentage? That's up for debate because it might not even be effective.

As for owning firearms in this country (which is a completely different topic) I wholeheartedly feel that the primary purpose of the second amendment is to give the general population access to weapons sufficient to defend its own interests, form its own government if necessary. If you debate the practicality of gun ownership in the U.S. you are really debating this topic, not privileges Americans may feel they are entitled to for sake of convenience, comfort, or entertainment. Hunting is a secondary matter.

In America, I think we see the right to bear arms directly equated to our right to defend our personal freedoms, regardless of how muddled this topic gets with (in my opinion) the white noise generated by firearm advocacy groups addressing matters like self defense, hunting, or target shooting. The problem in stating this is that in the statement seems, at best, to be an outmoded concern and, at worst, totally looney. But lets call a spade a spade- the reason the right to keep and bear arms was amended to our Constitution was because we just had to use all those arms to kick out the British army, nothing more.

My point is that even if there are hunters in the area you hike in there is no need to fear. The incidents of accidents is so low as to make it a non issue.
Its like flying, when things go wrong they really go wrong. But its the safest form of travel and thats why when there is an accident -anywhere in the country- its in the news.
Think about it, the hunters themselves are wearing camo and hiding in the bushes. Why arent they terrified of being shot?
Could they know something you or we dont?

>>>I don't care how jealous people feel about their pastimes and toys, as long as there is even the slightest possibility of someone getting killed then there has to be some very serious and heavy-handed preventive measures taken to ensure that it can't happen. That includes completely getting rid of hunting, if necessary.<<<

Every time somebody gets behind the wheel of an automobile, there is at least a non-zero chance an innocent person could be killed. Shall we ban driving…?

Sometimes tragic accidents happen. In cases where people exercised poor judgement, they need to face consequences.

All risks cannot be eliminated by legislation without unfairly infringing upon the rights of others.

To remain free and feel alive we have to accept risks. Otherwise, we should all live in our own personal plastic bubbles.

>>>Come on Miguel…flailing our guns around? Statements like this are exactly what tick me off every time this argument comes up. Own a gun = public menace/psychopath

Goodness grief, Craig. Do you fail to recognize paraphrasing? I feel it is better that people talk about this important issue and get ticked off, than to leave it silent and allow the mess to continue. And people to get killed.<<<

Sorry Miguel, you were not paraphrasing: You were using hyperbole. There is a distinct and important difference.

The idea of taking hunting seasons into consideration before stepping into the woods is absolutely hysterical in a country like New Zealand! For most New Zealand animals there are no hunting seasons. That is, we can hunt in New Zealand anytime of the year, day or night. Yes that's right, we can legally spotlight and shoot animals during the hours of darkness in New Zealand. There is NO WAY you can blame anyone but the person who wrongly pulls the trigger.

Seems you don't even have to leave your bed to get shot these days. Tragedy can strike anywhere, anytime, but it's more likely with a gun…you don't often hear headlines like "Random knife stab kills boy, 15, asleep in bed".

"Bukhari Washington had resisted the lure of gangs and drugs that derailed the lives of so many in his tough Newark neighborhood.

But that resolve couldn't stop the bullet that tore through the 15-year-old's head on August 14, killing him as he slept in his own bed.

Another teen on the floor below says the bullet accidentally fired as he was "fiddling" with a semiautomatic rifle he bought for protection.

Washington's death underscores a chronic problem that New Jersey's largest city can't seem to overcome: Teens keep killing each other with guns even as Newark's overall homicide rate is on pace to fall 40 percent.

Washington became Newark's 12th teenage homicide victim of 2008, a number that surpassed the city's total for all of 2007, according to statistics provided by the county prosecutor's office."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/20/newark.homicides.ap/

Every time I see a gun I fill my pants. They scare me rigid (in the UK you don't see many guns, thankfully). Simply put they are machines designed to kill.

Accidents will happen = fact; dunno what the answer is – I'm a veggie and don't eat dead animals, but I wear dead animal skins, so what does that all mean?! I cook dead animals for my son (he especially likes dead cow and dead chicken) but I don't mind cooking it, it is what he likes and I'm no fascist dictator.

All I am trying to say is that we are all cows grazing in the same field and we need to take care and respect others and their opinions. This gun was in the wrong hands, simple, there can be no excuse for some accidents. Respect was missing because not enough thought was given to the pulling of the trigger.

Interesting points being raised all around tho!

"…but it's more likely with a gun…you don't often hear headlines like "Random knife stab kills boy, 15, asleep in bed"." not trying to single out your comments, Alison but here are some interesting ideas:

here are some stats, that the anti-gun nuts can ponder while they wait for their next prescription of Prozac:

(in the usa, anually)
Murder committed using firearms accounts for less than 10,000 victims and the accidental firearms death toll is little more than 1,000. About 120 or so kids under 14 are killed by gunshots.

The medical system mortalities break down this way: adverse drug reactions: 106,000; medical error: 98,000; bedsores: 115,000; infection: 88,000; malnutrition: 108,000; outpatients: 199,000; unnecessary procedures: 37,136; surgery-related: 32,000.

SO – maybe we should BAN DOCTORS?

Medical error is an error – shooting some one is avoidable and preventable. No gun no one gets shot.

I haven't heard anyone on this thread mentionain a BAN on anything (except ignorance and stupidity perhaps). Perhaps we should tighten procedures that doctors (and nurses who do a lot of the harm in the stats you mention, and other patients who bring infections into hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies that may do the most harm in those stats). Likewise, perhaps Americans should consider tightening procedures around who has possesion of guns and how they are used. An untrained 15 year old with a stolen semi-automatic in his possession is as dangerous as a negligent doctor. Neither should be tolerated.

Surely that argument is a tongue in cheek wind up! If not then I am aghast!

Which arguement are you aghast at, Peter?

Martin, many if not most medical errors ARE preventable as well. It's all about having good procedures with adequate checks and balances to stop errors before harm is done. Same should be for guns IMHO.

The evil of medication/items and people made to heal = the evil of weapons/items made for killing!