Cheney shoots someone (I'm not kidding)

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:01:47 -0700, Willi wrote:

wrote:



The mere act of hunting, or even being in the area, contributes to an
environment where a hunting accident could occur. Note that they are
called "accidents."


Although I basically agree with you that the incident is being overblown
(there are many more important things to criticize the administration
about), your above statement is just bull****, IMO. It was carelessness,
not an "accident". Chaney is responsible for shooting the guy PERIOD.

Well, I use "accident" in the sense that it wasn't intentional. I think
we can all agree that Cheney a) didn't intentionally shoot the guy or
even intentionally shoot in the guy's direction, and b) that there is
absolutely no indication, much less evidence that he was firing so
irresponsibly so as to make it criminal.

But there does appear to be at least some indication that Whittington
acted with at least some carelessness himself. And there's no
indication that he did so with any intentions of any kind.

As such, since both were careless (and Cheney probably bears the
majority of responsibility, as I've already said) and neither intended
this to occur, I'll stick with calling it an accident...as always,
YMMV...

IMO, using the word "accident" dismisses the act with a "OOPS",
"Accidents do happen" - bull****. It's not an "OOPS" when you shoot
another person.

I'm not sure what you mean. I agree that accidentally shooting someone
isn't a light-hearted, "no big deal" thing, but given the total of
circumstances (esp. the fact that both were willing participants in the
activity), I'd say that _the shooting itself_ (NOT Whittington's
injuries) is about as minor a situation as possible under the
circumstances. Suppose he had been on the extreme edge of pattern so as
to have only been hit in the ass with a single pellet and only had a
welt. Would this receive the same coverage, and if it had, what would
your opinion be on it?

That attitude is part of the reason why I'm uncomfortable being around
people I don't know VERY well who are carrying a gun.

Of whose attitude are you speaking? AFAIK, only about 3-4 people have
_any_ eyewitness perspective, and even the one who has talked to the
press seems to consider it an (unfortunate) "accident" and seems to
indicate, as I have, that they are of the opinion that both screwed up.

On a lighter note....

I was involved in similar situation a long time ago when I was fishing a
stream in central Illinois. A guy was hunting rabbits with a shotgun and
sprayed me with shot. It hurt but didn't really injure me. However, it
did REALLY **** me off!! Like an idiot I took off after a guy toting a
gun while screaming and yelling at him that I was going to kick his ass.
Luckily, he decided to run instead of shoot!!

Um...OK...and this is "On a lighter note," but "you're uncomfortable
being around people you don't know VERY well who are carrying a gun."
I'm not trying to be confrontational and "AHA!" you, I'm just trying to
point out that sometimes folks don't remember that gun "accidents"
rarely have a truly "lighter" note.

TC,
R

wrote in message
news
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:01:47 -0700, Willi wrote:

wrote:



The mere act of hunting, or even being in the area, contributes to an
environment where a hunting accident could occur. Note that they are
called "accidents."


Although I basically agree with you that the incident is being overblown
(there are many more important things to criticize the administration
about), your above statement is just bull****, IMO. It was carelessness,
not an "accident". Chaney is responsible for shooting the guy PERIOD.

Well, I use "accident" in the sense that it wasn't intentional. I think
we can all agree that Cheney a) didn't intentionally shoot the guy or
even intentionally shoot in the guy's direction, and b) that there is
absolutely no indication, much less evidence that he was firing so
irresponsibly so as to make it criminal.

O.k., I give up. What in the world could possibly lead you to the
conclusion that we can all agree on any of that?

But there does appear to be at least some indication that Whittington
acted with at least some carelessness himself.

Um......well, yeah, I guess there's no denying that he was somewhere in the
neighborhood.

And there's no
indication that he did so with any intentions of any kind.

O.k.....yeah.....I think we can all agree that no one on the scene went
there with any sort of intentions.

As such, since both were careless (and Cheney probably bears the
majority of responsibility, as I've already said) and neither intended
this to occur, I'll stick with calling it an accident...as always,
YMMV...

Sometimes it's really hard to remain certain that you can't possibly believe
any of the **** you write.

IMO, using the word "accident" dismisses the act with a "OOPS",
"Accidents do happen" - bull****. It's not an "OOPS" when you shoot
another person.

I'm not sure what you mean. I agree that accidentally shooting someone
isn't a light-hearted, "no big deal" thing, but given the total of
circumstances (esp. the fact that both were willing participants in the
activity), I'd say that _the shooting itself_ (NOT Whittington's
injuries) is about as minor a situation as possible under the
circumstances.

Seriously.....have you ever wondered whether you could possibly be any
crazier?

Suppose he had been on the extreme edge of pattern so as
to have only been hit in the ass with a single pellet and only had a
welt. Would this receive the same coverage, and if it had, what would
your opinion be on it?

No.....really.....it was a serious question.

That attitude is part of the reason why I'm uncomfortable being around
people I don't know VERY well who are carrying a gun.

Of whose attitude are you speaking? AFAIK, only about 3-4 people have
_any_ eyewitness perspective, and even the one who has talked to the
press seems to consider it an (unfortunate) "accident" and seems to
indicate, as I have, that they are of the opinion that both screwed up.

On a lighter note....

I was involved in similar situation a long time ago when I was fishing a
stream in central Illinois. A guy was hunting rabbits with a shotgun and
sprayed me with shot. It hurt but didn't really injure me. However, it
did REALLY **** me off!! Like an idiot I took off after a guy toting a
gun while screaming and yelling at him that I was going to kick his ass.
Luckily, he decided to run instead of shoot!!

Um...OK...and this is "On a lighter note," but "you're uncomfortable
being around people you don't know VERY well who are carrying a gun."
I'm not trying to be confrontational and "AHA!" you, I'm just trying to
point out that sometimes folks don't remember that gun "accidents"
rarely have a truly "lighter" note.

Ah! That "lighter" note would be the subsequent heart attack
part........right? Yeah, that's a ****in' hoot and a half!

Wolfgang

wrote:

Well, I use "accident" in the sense that it wasn't intentional. I think
we can all agree that Cheney a) didn't intentionally shoot the guy or
even intentionally shoot in the guy's direction, and b) that there is
absolutely no indication, much less evidence that he was firing so
irresponsibly so as to make it criminal.

In politics, as in any public forum, once you become a laughingstock
you're finished. You of all people should know that.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:43:42 GMT, rw
wrote:

wrote:

Well, I use "accident" in the sense that it wasn't intentional. I think
we can all agree that Cheney a) didn't intentionally shoot the guy or
even intentionally shoot in the guy's direction, and b) that there is
absolutely no indication, much less evidence that he was firing so
irresponsibly so as to make it criminal.

In politics, as in any public forum, once you become a laughingstock
you're finished. You of all people should know that.

Well, true enough, I guess...I have observed you here on ROFF for a few
years...

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:50:39 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:02:11 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

No, you don't.

Sorry, but I do feel you have a big problem.

No, you don't.

Ooooops, I forgot. You are the resident Sexual Intellect. Can't get
anything past you can I.

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:50:39 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:02:11 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

No, you don't.

Sorry, but I do feel you have a big problem.

No, you don't.

Ooooops, I forgot. You are the resident Sexual Intellect. Can't get
anything past you can I.

"Does it make you feel good to make fun of people?"

Wolfgang

"rw" wrote in message
news
Pellets will remain in Cheney shooting victim's face forever:

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/...e/13864245.htm

--
30 yds is a bit closer than I'd care to be "sprayed" even with a 28 ga.
Shot velocity isn't significantly different with a 28 ga. than it is with a
12- just has about 1/2 as many shot pellets . It didn't mention what size
shot they were using, but skeet is a 21 yd shot with #8-1/2"s or #9's and a
28 ga. does just fine powdering the targets at that range.

OTOH, Gregg Lemond seems to have done just fine with a chest full of turkey
shot- gratis his brother IIRC.

jh

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:21:57 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

"Does it make you feel good to make fun of people?"

Well, of you, yes, what with your shiney nickles and your playground
ineptness.

And I ask the same question to you, and add, "Does it make you feel
good to call people names?"

"John Hightower" wrote in message
...

OTOH, Gregg Lemond seems to have done just fine with a chest full of
turkey shot- gratis his brother IIRC.

jh

Yes, it's very fortunate that LeMond survived the hunting injuries and was
able to comeback and win the '89 & '90 Tour, but also thought he missed out
on the '87 & '88 tour which he would have been a strong contender.
-tom

rw wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cheney_hunting_accident


I'd rather hunt with Dick Cheney than ride with Ted Kennedy.