Bear Hunter Shoots Hiker in Washington State

I agree with you Peter that the arguement was somewhat fatuous, but when i thought about our ancestors I had to admit that there was a time and place when guns would have been an incredible tool for 'good' when hunting was a way of life. They made it easier to provide food, clothing and shelter to our ancestors. I personally can't see how modern-day gun use is of much benefit to the average person other than for recreational activities like hunting. Sure, guns are only designed to kill (never heal), but that doesn't mean they can't help people living in subsistance circumstances.

tongue in cheek, sure. It was just the comment about innocent people getting what they dont deserve, etc… well, that happens all the time. shoot. I dont like it any better than the next man. My point was to show (and you can google results for yourself) that gun deaths are very low considering the ways you might die unnanounced or innocently or even on purpose. another thing, why is it that some of the arguments are from people in countries where guns are not legal? does it really matter to you what happens in the USA? dont you have something better to do?

well, on another tongue in cheek issue, it could be argued that far far too many US guns don't stay in the US!

But as it's 2.15 in the morning, my 'better thing to do' thing is sleep!

Allison Miller wrote- "I personally can't see how modern-day gun use is of much benefit to the average person other than for recreational activities like hunting"

I have been primarily on the side of the anti-hunters throughout this argument but I have a disagreement with your statement, Allison. Once again, in the States, we view our right to bear arms to be intrinsically tied into the freedom of our population. It is how we gained our independence, after all. Now, is the average Joe Civilian's gun ownership largely symbolic when it comes to this point, in this day and age? Perhaps. But I have heard recounts of Japanese generals during WWII discussing the futility of invading the U.S., due in large part there was a firearm behind every other door.

Michael Stivers wrote: "My point was to show (and you can google results for yourself) that gun deaths are very low considering the ways you might die unnanounced or innocently or even on purpose."

I need to pick a bone with you here, Mike. Just because someone is more likely to be die due to an adverse reaction to drugs then accidental gunfire does not make death by accidental gunfire any less tragic…and it doesn't make the person shot and killed any less dead. It only makes it less likely to happen. Should we worry about ensuring that people with access to firearms are as responsible as can be? I think so. I said it earlier and I will say it again- no 14 year old kid should be walking around alone in the woods with a deadly weapon, I don't care how mature he is purported to be. No offense to anyone who made it through their teenage hunting career without killing a hiker but that's flat-out too young to hunt without direct adult supervision.

As far as I know, guns are "legal' in most countries. The biggest difference between US gun policy and countries such as NZ are the way guns are managed. I read a statistic somewhere that more guns pass through Stewart Island (far south of NZ) then anywhere else on the planet due to the abundance of white tail deer hunting. But we have to have licences to own a gun, and it must be stored securely at all times, and we can't pack a handgun on our hip (unless you are a cop), and I don't think we're allowed to own semi-automatics unless you are part of a SWAT team. So hunting is a huge part of our culture, and most of that hunting is done with guns. BTW what happens in the USA matters as much to me as what is happening in China or any other country where human rights are infringed (I consider getting shot dead for no good reason to be an infringement of human rights). Plus I am a US citizen.

As far as medicine goes, almost everyone signs a consent form before they receive treatment. I'm sure the consent form mentions the possibility of accidental harm. Maybe people that want to go hiking should also sign a consent form so that if they get shot the person shooting them can say "well you knew there was a small risk of gunshot injury if you hike here during hunting season".

>I have been primarily on the side of the anti-hunters throughout this argument but I have a disagreement with your statement, Allison. Once again, in the States, we view our right to bear arms to be intrinsically tied into the freedom of our population. It is how we gained our independence, after all. Now, is the average Joe Civilian's gun ownership largely symbolic when it comes to this point, in this day and age? Perhaps. But I have heard recounts of Japanese generals during WWII discussing the futility of invading the U.S., due in large part there was a firearm behind every other door

Russell, most repressed people must gain their independence by use of violence one way or another. Colonies such as the US and NZ have violent pasts that in hindsight we should be ashamed of. Just because we used guns to gain and control our independence and land ownership doesn't make it right to build a society around these practices. We no longer hunt and kill American Indians, or indigenous Maoris, or aboriginal Australians. We no longer import slaves from Africa at gunpoint. And the weapons of war now available to the likes of the Japanese and Americans would make guns as useless as toys in a real war…so yes, I think the American desire to hang onto their gun culture is largely symbolic. I can't see how it benefits most people except maybe emotionally they feel more secure.

Well I just could not resist this.
I found this on another forum.
"To all you UN loving hoplophobes based in Japan, New Zealand,The UK or wherever. And to all you liberal anti-weapon whiners in the US as well as all of you PETA freaks. I have two words for you when it comes to our weapons Molon Labe. Look it up. Don't send your henchmen like the ATF either. I am sure it will work out for you. Bring it on."
Now thats Hyperbole :)
That being said the kid is a moron as I have said before.

kinda hard to make an influence or VOTE on your favorite topic of discussion when you have decided to place yourself overseas. any one who leaves this country, whether it be on a Peace Corps mission or otherwise, has no say in what happens in our borders.
quit your whining. I am a liberal, registered Democrat who does not posses any firearms but I'll tell you this: its not your concern what happens on an accidental basis and its not reasonable to complain about something you cannot change. Guns are legal provided you are not a felon and I support that right to bear arms, as a basis for protecting the populace of American citizens against a tyrranical government. I live in Arizona. John Wayne and Clint Eastwood were not from England or Japan. That is all you need to understand. Im sorry for the family who has to deal with a loss and bury a loved one, but c'mon. More people die from slipping in the shower. Get over it.

Allison your point.. "many if not most medical errors ARE preventable as well".. I agree with , I was drawing a contrast to guns and the argument in question about deaths in hospitals vs gun death. But error happens in hospitals with good procedures in place. There are no good, or acceptable procedures to allow any unsupervised young person to walk around in the woods with rifles hunting in any country.

As a Brit outsider, I don't have any say in how the US organises and regulates countryside access for people discharging weapons, but I'm taking part in this debate (which is after all just a chat on the net with nothing at stake) because I'm interested in the cultural and social differences in different countries. I'm sure that in a lot of cases, people who are "accidentally" shot dead by 'hunters' have misadventure verdicts recorded at their inquests. In most of Europe, the 'hunter' would be up on a manslaughter charge. Here's another interesting example of the american way with guns where the victim *apologizes* to the 'hunter'.

"My family and I are deeply sorry for everything Vice-President Cheney and his family have had to deal with," he said. "We hope that he will continue to come and seek the relaxation that he deserves." – Harry Whittington

The Kenedy County Sheriff's Department closed its investigation of the shooting on Thursday without filing any charges.

In the UK, Dick Cheney would have had his shotgun license revoked and would have been facing charges of negligently discharging a firearm.

Harry's injuries were 'an accident', but Cheney's action of swinging the shotgun past the safe line and pulling the trigger was negligence.

The issue here is seperating the connotations which go along with the word 'accident' from the question of the negligence, culpability and responsibility of the person who caused it.

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

John, I stand corrected! And I learned the difference between two words. I'm never one to say I'm too old to learn. Thanks!

People are always correcting me when I think I'm right! And here I'm trying so hard to do as Gandhi advised, "You must be the cringe you want to see in the words." (^J^)/"

To answer this question posed by poster Miguel:

"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? "

See the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in District of Columbia vs Heller at:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

which recognized that, when the necessity for codifying the right to possess guns into the Second Amendment was debated, most Americans "undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting" although a concern for self-protection from an oppressive government was the focus of debate about whether to codify that "ancient" right with its "central components" into the Constitution:

"It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.

"The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right — unlike some other English rights — was codified in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue — but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself."

To ask why "in this day and time" the right to possess guns exist is to presume that there is no good purpose served by hunting, or by the ability to defend oneself.

While there are folks who question (indeed, deny) the value of hunting or the need for self-defense, other folks have a different opinion. Protected by the Constitution, the right continues to exist in America. That's the way it is until, and unless, the time ever comes when enough folks in America all agree there is no value for hunting and self-defense. Don't hold your breath.

Meanwhile, argue for banning cars. Tens of thousands of folks are killed per year by car accidents, and many thousands more are seriously maimed, in the U.S alone. These losses are often due to drunk drivers who are not merely negligent but reckless when they drink and drive.

There's no constitutional right to drive a car. No cars would mean no car accidents.

JRS

"any one who leaves this country, whether it be on a Peace Corps mission or otherwise, has no say in what happens in our borders."

I've never used it, but last I heard, the absentee ballot was still an acceptable method of voting if one is qualified and applies in time.

"Guns are legal provided you are not a felon…"

By default, this may be true, but there are many who have successfully completed the process to have their gun ownership rights restored. These tend to be non-violent offenders. Just being a felon doesn't keep you from ever owning a gun again.

"Meanwhile, argue for banning cars. Tens of thousands of folks are killed per year by car accidents, and many thousands more are seriously maimed, in the U.S alone. These losses are often due to drunk drivers who are not merely negligent but reckless when they drink and drive.

There's no constitutional right to drive a car. No cars would mean no car accidents."

This is something I alluded to in an earlier post, but did not blatantly state it.
I agree that what happened to the hiker is a tragedy. Many more people are killed by people driving automobiles. Legislation has been introduced, passed and strictly enforced. People go to prison all the time. Drunk driving can even be prevented. People know the consequences, yet they continue to do it.
[Insert rant here about cell phone use while driving]
If more gun regulation was passed, would it really change anything? I doubt it. For those that feel someone needs to take action, talk to the kid's parents. That's where it should start. Isn't the parent responsible for their children's actions? Too bad no charges were filed. This could have been a good example to set.

this is taking up far too many of the recent posts. Tents and superficial things are less vexing and more fun!

I agree Peter and I seem to have forgotten this is BPL! And, I bet the only people bothering to read this thread anymore are the people posting on it. And, we're really going in circles here. And the only one who's had an epiphany through this thread is Miguel, with his use of hyperbole.

"I am a liberal, registered Democrat who does not posses any firearms but I'll tell you this: its not your concern what happens on an accidental basis and its not reasonable to complain about something you cannot change. Guns are legal provided you are not a felon and I support that right to bear arms, as a basis for protecting the populace of American citizens against a tyrranical government"
I am confused.
I am sorry to tell you this but your position makes no sense. If you are Democrat you are a Socialist. The only one of your kind to have the guts to say what he is Bernie Sanders from Vermont. I despise him for what he is but admire him for having the guts to tell the truth. Socialism and individual gun ownership do not mix. Socialism is the very definition of Tyranny. Oh it may be the Tyranny of the Majority but Tyranny it is.
I am a libertarin and hold the views of both liberals and conservatives in almost complete contempt. To me you are just the two sides of the same liberty smashing coin.
But hey I have hope for alot of confused liberals and conservatives who only think they are such. Come to the side of the light. Throw off your statist ways and fight for liberty.

Does anybody other than me wish this thread would die?

I agree. I think the gun rights discussion should probably move to the off topic sub-forum.

Yeah, the thread could be moved, or it will eventually die a natural death (hopefully not by accidental gunshot).

>kinda hard to make an influence or VOTE on your favorite topic of discussion when you have decided to place yourself overseas. any one who leaves this country, whether it be on a Peace Corps mission or otherwise, has no say in what happens in our borders.

That is so incorrect that it really doesn't need addressing. As a citizen not only can I (and do) vote, but all of my extended family lives in USA, so what happens there is as much my business as anyone's.

Why do the"pro-gun" posters keep posting as if someone is trying to make owning a gun illegal? Some of us merely think that it is not unreasonable to put some restictions on who uses them and for what. This already happens if you want to get on a commercial airplane, or ae IN prison, or want to visit someone in prison, etc…it is clearly not an unalienable right to always pack a pistol with you anywhere you go, nor should 15 year olds be allowed to handle these weapons without adequate training and supervision. Why is that so subversive to some of you? It should hardly matter what country you are in. We don't let doctors practice without intensive training and initial supervision. We don't let 10 year olds drive dangerous cars, and we don't let anyone drive a car without first passing written and road tests. Guns are DESIGNED to kill…doctors and cars and whatever other fatuous arguement you want to use are quite the opposite in their intended use, so due care in deciding who can use a gun seems utterly reasonable and responsible to a reasonable person.

>>>Why do the"pro-gun" posters keep posting as if someone is trying to make owning a gun illegal?<<<

Several times somebody suggested that hunting should be completely banned if accidents could not be prevented with 100% certainty.

Even though I don't hunt, and don't own a single gun, I object strongly to that sentiment, mostly due to "slippery slope" concerns.

Completely banning hunting is idiotic IMHO. Even more so in our country where all the hunted animals are introduced pests whose populations would spiral out of control without hunting. Plus, though I don't see the ability to carry a pistol on my hip or a semi-automatic under my seat to be good or necessary for hunting or defense. I see hunting as a sport which should be encouraged but managed. Guns (as in good old fashioned rifles) aren't always the only method of hunting either. Pig hunters often use dogs to corner their prey, then finish them off face-to-face with a knife. Others enjoy the sport of hunting with crossbow, bow and arrows, traps, spears or whatever. However, no matter what weapon is used, you want to be sure the person using it is competent with that weapon, knows what they are and are not allowed to hunt, kills as humabely as possible, and most importantly always clearly and unambiguosly identifies their target. Surely we can all agree at least on that last point.

Allison wrote:

"Even more so in our country where all the hunted animals are introduced pests whose populations would spiral out of control without hunting."

Are you talking about NZ or the US. Here in California thanks to hunters the only plece where are state symbol the grizzly can be viewed is stuffed in a museum.

Numerous people in their support of hunting rights have said that driving is so much more dangerous. I think it safe to say that most peopl on this board generally feel safe enough to walking across the street even with dangerous drivers in the area.

However I haven't seen anyone on this board say they feel safe when walking in the woods when hunters are in the area. This is a problem.

While drivers have by and large agreed to reasonable measures to share space with others, hunters have not. It would be nice if hunters would take this responsibility on themselves. But, judging by the responses on this board, I'd guess that is unlikely. In which case government needs to step in and address the problem.

>>>Numerous people in their support of hunting rights have said that driving is so much more dangerous. I think it safe to say that most peopl on this board generally feel safe enough to walking across the street even with dangerous drivers in the area.<<<

Whether or not you "feel" safer crossing the street or driving a car vs. walking in the woods during hunting season, statistically I suspect you are not.

We should not legislate based on feelings.

Nia, I meant New Zealand where ther are no bears, in fact there are no real predators of any kind except humans to keep in check the introduced pests such as deer, rabbits, possums, thar, chamois,goats and pigs (not to mention the rats, stoats and ferrets). These mammals are all big threats to NZs natural wildlife and vegetation. And by-in-large hunters (in NZ and USA) are the most likely to be shot by other hunters. It is unusual for a true innocent by-stander to get shot like the woman that started this thread. I personally do not feel threatened when walking in the woods even though it's hunting season 365 days of the year. The chances of getting shot are still much smaller than getting involved in a car crash caused by a drunk or unlicenced under age driver. So, just as not all hunters are responsible (though most are), not all car drivers are responsible either (though most are).