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.

Edited by nschmald on 08/21/2008 16:31:02 MDT.

>>>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).

John wrote:
"We should not legislate based on feelings."

Here is a point where we agree. Legislation should be based on facts and not anecdotes and any remedies should be studied to determine whether or not they actually do any good. I would love to see real statistics on the number of people out hiking around hunters against the numbers of deaths and injuries. To my knowledge no such data exists.

However, it is a fact that a large portion of people who use the wilderness (about 100% on this board) who use the wilderness do not feel safe. That suggests that the issue deserves further inquiry.

I would think it reasonable that hunting licenses fund the collection of data like I suggested above. Once we have the data, we can look at the root causes of the accidents, and then look at any possible changes to equipment and or the regulations. This is exactly what we did with driving to significantly reduce accidents. I think it would be just as effective with hunting.

Mike ,

Are you sure of your stats here? By my reckoning, you're claiming that 1 in every 300 people in the US is killed each year by medical malpractice? So if you live to 75, the chances of being killed by a doctor is one in four.

(of course, by the same reckoning the chances of being shot dead by the time you are 75 is only 1 in 333)


Edited by mikeinfhaz on 08/20/2008 17:20:59 MDT.
(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?

The hunter pleaded not guilty to first degree manslaughter charges in court Wednesday.

link

"The teen, whom The Seattle Times is not naming because he is charged as a juvenile, faces up to nine months in juvenile detention if convicted."

Wow.

The news report in Portland said he could be in juvenile detention until he is 21 if convicted. This is a major felony case.

Well, heck, I guess the US justice system actually worked.

Huh.

I never would have thunk it. I expected either an outlandish over-reaction, or dismissal of all charges, not a manslaughter conviction. That said, I'm not sure that locking the kid up until he is 21 would be justice. Juvie manufactures hardened criminals. This kid may be a viciously negligent moron, but he probably isn't a hardened criminal. If we lock him up in juvie for the next 11 years, he will walk out a 21-year-old hardened criminal. I don't think justice would be served.

Perhaps a 9-month (or shorter) stay to scare him witless, then probation until age 21, and loss of the right to own a gun (as for a felony) would, in fact, be appropriate.

[I have deleted a long response to the "ban-hunting" crowd, in the interest of letting that debate die. Anyone who is honestly interested in my gun views can PM me. I am more interest in opinions about the legal decision, which seems much more productive.]

Edited by acrosome on 09/11/2008 09:57:54 MDT.

"The papers I read say the area was clear with no trees or obstructions to vision, the fog was light, they said that they had the target in the crosshairs of the scope, she was shot in the head, she was shot from 120 yards away.

I don't believe the hunter ever genuinely mistook the hiker for a bear."

This would suggest it wasn't a stupid hunter at all, but a kid who knew what he was doing, and wanted a thrill, with no regard for human life.

Edited by parmens on 09/11/2008 10:57:11 MDT.

Uh, WHAT would suggest this? The sentence? His plea? I don't understand, Stephen.

Killing someone through foolish or reckless action is nonetheless a crime. It is called manslaughter. (As opposed to murder, which is illegally intentionally taking a life.)

Where statistics HAVE been available, they suggest that hunters who are using a scope when they spot their 'prey' are twice as likely to mistakenly shoot someone as hunters who site their prey through movement or sounf and then verify their prey with binoculars. It is not unrealistic that this kid made the same mistake as many other hunters, ie trusting his rifle scope to identify his prey.

still manslaughter though. with hunting comes great responsiblity. this kid has the training, knew he should have verified with binoculars, which he didn't.

if it was intentional, i don't think they would have ran back and told anyone.

also, not sure how old the brother was, if it was an adult, he should share some of the burden, if not, why were these kids hunting without adult supervison.

dumb.