Vice President Dick Cheney Shoots Hunting Colleague

[kenpojujitsu]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

Your Brother
John

 

[michaeledward]

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.

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]

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]

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?

Just asking. Thanks.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

I completely agree.

 

[sgtmac_46]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.