Vice President Dick Cheney Shoots Hunting Colleague

[shesulsa]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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:

1. A device, such as a saw, used to perform or facilitate manual or mechanical work.
2. 1. A machine, such as a lathe, used to cut and shape machine parts or other objects.
   2. The cutting part of such a machine.
3. Something regarded as necessary to the carrying out of one's occupation or profession

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:

1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
2. Zoology. A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
3. 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]

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.

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.

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.

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'

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

Your Brother
John

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.



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:



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.

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]

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).

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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

 

[mrhnau]

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