During my last family reunion, we had a most interesting discussion on hunting. I come from a long, long line of hunters. I hate hunting and always kept quiet because I knew I was the minority and would not be heard. I was stunned and thrilled by what I heard. The older generation quit hunting because they are disgusted by the "modern" hunters who often shoot and maim and not kill, who are careless with their firearms, kill the fawns as well as the adults, leave trash, kill more than they really need, thus wiping out an area of wildlife in no time. AND how dangerous these people are with their irresponsible ways. All expressed concerns about being shot.
What was even more thrilling is that my generation of males, first, second and third cousins do not hunt at all. One works with wildlife conservation. All of us have some sense of responsibility when it comes to wildlife. They always had it concerning firearms.
The moral of the story is there is hope. This is a very, very long way for one family to come in one generation.
tamara stickler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
tamara stickler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In respect to this article on the woman shot walking her child to the bus stop...I will try to find it this weekend....at one time I had it tucked in a book as proof to the dangers of the "sport". If I remember correctly, the hunter was guilty of wrongful death, but didn't do time -just probation because it was considered an actual accident. The man, apparantly was an upstanding citizen of the community, had a high powered gun of some sort, and was hunting legally on the wooded land surrounding a farm, he sighted what appeared to him to be a deer through the trees and shot (obviously without confirming his target). On the other side of the trees the woman walking to the bus stop (corner of the street) with her child. It happened in a small rural community, where most of the citizens hunted. Anyway, if I get a chance this weekend I'll look for the article, I had it and several other bizzarre news items like it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I can't imagine what the legal reasoning would be that a jury could use to
acquit. First time or not, we all know that guns are meant to kill...this guy
was, after all out to kill a deer, right? So if this idiot was proven to be
the one who fired the gun, and it could be established the bullet that killed
the woman was fired from that gun, what more is there to consider? A woman is
dead and that is wrongful death or manslaughter any way you look at it. It may
not have been premeditated (with regards to killing that particular woman),
so doesn't qualify as murder, but I can't believe there wasn't a public outcry
of some sort in protest. There was much less direct evidence to convict Scott
Peterson of murdering his wife, and he is sitting on death row. Go figure!
Geez...I guess if you live in the woods where there are deer, or near a lake
that is frequented by ducks in hunting season, you are no better off than
someone who lives in Watts or East L.A. where drive-by shootings occur on a
regular basis.
There is much lip service paid to our constitutional "right" to bear arms by
groups like the NRA, but what about the responsibility to do so with great
care. Freedom exercised without responsibility can be dangerous. Somehow I
don't think what our founding fathers had in mind was open season on innocent
bystanders.
Sally in San Jose
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
