41 replies [Last post]
Offline
Joined: 04/10/2004
Posts: 29
Would stiffer penalties prevent hunting accidents?

Just because I'm a vegan doesn't mean I can't own a gun- I admit though- it's pretty damn hard to pass a hunter saftey course with my philophies but whatever-

Quicksilver's picture
Offline
Location: Colorado
Joined: 05/03/2003
Posts: 239
Would stiffer penalties prevent hunting accidents?

Licensed Hunters = 13,975,000
Total Accidents = 1042

1,042 / 13,975,000 = 7.456173524e^-5 or .00074(100) = .074%

Less than .075% of all licensed hunters will experience either a Fatal or Non-Fatal shooting. So it's safe to assume that most of these accidents are either caused by a bullet ricocheting, which is completely out of the hunter control, or accidental shooting which is often more harmful to the shooter than his partners. Both of which are impossible to regulate...
This theory plays off the assumption that the .074% of the hunting population is hunting wildlife and not each other...

So in the words of "Sagebrush and Carrot Top", Accidents will happen in all walks of life... No matter the amount of education, an idiot, (with or without a loving father), will find a way to make it happen. So lets all just go fishing...

Vegan_Cannibal wrote:
That's what scares me.

Carrot Top, you don't even hunt, so what are you scared about?

Offline
Joined: 04/10/2004
Posts: 29
Would stiffer penalties prevent hunting accidents?
Quote:
Carrot Top, you don't even hunt, so what are you scared about?

I'm starting to feel safer, but I still wont go hiking during moose season. Wink

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Would stiffer penalties prevent hunting accidents?

This is the plane crash effect in all its glory. As other have pointed out, accidents are extremely rare, but do to the heart wrenching nature of any accident (particularly those with kids) anti-hunters use the rare anamoly to ratchet up laws against hunting and on hunters. Never mind that 99% of hunters never encounter or are involved in an accident. If you really want to save lives (rather than use it as a lame excuse to limit hunting), focus on third world poverty, cheap HIV vaccines, a cure for cancer, or a way to prevent heart disease.

It is true that most all hunting accidents are misidentification "heat of the moment" incidents, I highly doubt that higher penalities will have any effect on negligence; simply because if they are not thinking long enough to "say is that a bush, a persons butt, or an elk rump", they certainly are not thinking long enough to consider the consquence in legalistic terms.

Location: Utah
Joined: 02/24/2003
Posts: 596
Would stiffer penalties prevent hunting accidents?

Vege..

I saw a commercial the other day for Walgreens that started out talking about a town called Perfect. It went on to say unfortuneately we don't live in "Perfect" and thats why theres the store. My point is this, this world isn't perfect. Thats not to say we shouldn't continue to work hard to make things better. However hunting is by the numbers a very safe activity in relation. You can't argue that!! In my state last year more than 300,00 hunting licenses were sold and we had 6 accidents and 0 fatalities.

Not knowing your target is a violation of basic hunters safety. Then again running a stop sign is a violation of traffic laws. But its not intentional and every knows the inherit risks when they do any sort of activity. Accidents will always happen because human beings are not perfect. But I would say hunting is safe for anyone who doesn't live in a rubber padded room and never comes out. If you're afraid of being shot while hiking then you simply don't know the fact because you have a better chance of being killed while driving to your hiking spot than you do being shot while there.

If you are a vegan, I'm sure you're an anti hunter. I'll leave my personal feelings out of it but I will say this. If you are a rational thinker at all, the evidence should make you admit that hunting is in fact very safe.

I have to agree with Bitmasher here. When someone doesn't believe in something they use the most gut-wrenching rarity they can find and use it to their advantage when in reality it has very little relevance to the big picture. Let face it, our children are NOT being killed and maimed by hunters.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
Would stiffer penalties prevent hunting accidents?

Very well said Mr. rather_be and I agree .

I too, could give a rats crooked tail what anybody eats as long as they dont try and stop me from eating what I want to. I loves me some vegis also, nothing goes with Pork better than Collard Greens.

One point I would like to bring attention to is this aforementioned hunting accident. That was no hunting accident that got those boys shot, that was plain and simple a shooting.
From what I read, (and I read it several times) the old timer heard something in the brush (perhaps saw the brush moving also), shouldered his weapon, aimed and fired. That, my friends, is no accident, hunting or otherwise. Just because it turned out to be 2 youngsters and not a turkey doesn't make it an accident. I submit to you that if it would have been a turkey would we be saying that he killed that turkey accidently? Just because he didn't set out to shoot some kids doesn't make it an accident no more than if a drunk that crashes his car into 2 kids is called an accident , its called a crime even if the drunk didn't set out to hit 2 kids with his car or even that he didn't set out to get drunk and drive.

A hunting accident is when you trip and drop your weapon and it discharges, or you are sitting in your stand fidgeting with the trigger and your weapon discharges, or you fall out of your stand, trip on a log or rock and bust your leg or arm or worse.
When we lay down our money and purchase a firearm we are taking on a huge responsability to handle it with due care whether its used for home self-defense or for hunting and other shooting sports.
We, as hunters need to make the distinction clear that while you may be hunting when you shoot something that you aimed at and pulled the trigger on and it turned out to be a person that you shot and not what you may have thought it was that it is no hunting accident.
As Bitmasher stated it is a plane crash effect and politicians are just looking for something to get their name mentioned in the name of good and safety. Before you know it we will have to get physicals and eye exams and register our hunting rifles and ammo every year. The fact that Vegan_Cannibal has mentioned this means that it's being thought about and discussed in the anti- hunting camps. I dont know about you guys but I really dont want a License Plate attached to the stock of my rifle. :x

Offline
Location: Pennsylvania
Joined: 10/28/2003
Posts: 1647
Would stiffer penalties prevent hunting accidents?

JT....very good point. It was no accident...it was stupidity and the man will forever pay the price of his stupidity in his mind. It still doesn't make it OK. He was wrong! I feel terrible for everyone involved.

No one mentioned the fact that about 80% of all "accidents" involving hunters are a direct result of someone breaking a law. Most of the people who have been shot in my state since they have been keeping records were not wearing the required amount of flourescent orange or none at all. Some were hit by bullets that passed through to the person in the woods with no orange and some were hit by people that did not possitively identify thier targets. In both situations these people were breaking the law....if you remove the 80% from the stats on average that would bring your figures down in perportion to somewhere around 250 real accidents (when no laws where broken) for the 14 million hunters out there if everyone just followed the rules that have been put in place by HUNTERS!
Still.....accidents will happen. That can't be prevented. :(

saskie's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: West Carleton, Ottawa, Canada
Joined: 12/23/2002
Posts: 1264
Would stiffer penalties prevent hunting accidents?

FINALLY!!! A thread that is more hottly debated than using a .270 for elk!

Stiffer penalties may help - but probably not. I've heard a lot of "old-timers" knock mandatory hunter safety education as being hog-wash..."Granpappy taught me all I need to know". True - as long as Granpappy was a safe hunter. I've heard and seen some bone-chillingly dangerous BS from very long-time hunters that makes me afraid to hunt with them.

I fully support proof-of-comptency as being a pre-requisite to getting a hunting licence. Maybe not take a course but definitely demonstrate that you know and understand the basic concepts of firearm and hunter safety, such as: "never point a firearm at anything you do not intend to shoot"; and "be sure of your target and beyond" for example.

Location: Utah
Joined: 02/24/2003
Posts: 596
Would stiffer penalties prevent hunting accidents?

Intersting comments. I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. Whenever something like this happens there are 2 parts. First was is intentional or not and why did it happen.

So for the first part, from what little we have it does not look intentional and he was not in the act of committing another crime so I'd have to say it was in fact an accident. An accident means he was meaning to shoot a turkey, not two boys.

However when you ask yourself, " why did this happen?" It did happen due to negligence. A basic hunter safety rule was broken. ALWAYS KNOW YOUR TARGET! There is NEVER an excuse for mistaking humans as wildlife, NEVER. If one of the boys died he should've been charged with manslaughter because had he taken the time to do it right by the law, it would've never happened.

I thinking having a hunting license like a drivers license might not be such a bad idea. Every so many years you go in, take a vision test and a small safety test and you're out the door.

Quicksilver's picture
Offline
Location: Colorado
Joined: 05/03/2003
Posts: 239
Would stiffer penalties prevent hunting accidents?
rather_be_huntin wrote:
I thinking having a hunting license like a drivers license might not be such a bad idea. Every so many years you go in, take a vision test and a small safety test and you're out the door.

In order to analyze the necessity of an increase in regulations individuals in the hunting community need to weigh the costs and benefits.

Regulations have a tendency to segregate, decrease efficiency, and lower overall usage. Some studies show a decrease in the active hunting population and to place more mandatory restrictions, or hoops to jump through, could accelerate this downward trend.

Regulations are not free and are often funded by an increase in taxes, fees, caught offenders, or acquired through cutting other programs. Where, or better yet, who is going to supply the extra funds for testing supplies, vision equipment, and inforcement personell?

Just a speculation, but I'll guess that hunters will be the money generating machine funding an increase in hunting related regulations, and not our veggie loving friends who propose these ideas.

Overall, 14 million hunters would experience either a price increase, extra fees, or penalties due to an increase in regulations for the benefit of about 1,000 negligent hunters.

Are the costs worth the benefits?

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
poachers pay thousands not hundreds as thought.captchee1503/07/2004 20:29 pm
Car-Deer Accidents and the RutCVC811/10/2010 11:18 am
petamike338911/01/2002 14:10 pm
And it continues in AlaskaCa_Vermonster111/21/2010 15:20 pm
New puppy is homeDon Fischer402/01/2014 23:17 pm