Hunting The Hunters?
Another big story in the media in the last few days is the incident in Wisconsin of six people killed in an arguement over a tree hunting blind.
~~~~~~
A Hmong immigrant suspected of killing six fellow deer hunters in the Wisconsin woods told investigators that he opened fire after they took a shot at him first and yelled racial slurs, according to court papers filed Tuesday. Vang's description of events differs sharply from the one authorities provided the day before, based on survivors' testimony, which described the rampage as an unprovoked attack. Sawyer County Sheriff James Meier said Monday that Vang inexplicably turned on the hunting party and began shooting after being told to leave the property. One witness, Lauren Hesebeck, who was wounded in the shootings, said a member of the hunting party shot at Vang only after he started firing at them, according to court documents.
According to Vang's story, he got lost while hunting on public land and ended up in the vacant tree stand -- a raised platform used by hunters to see deer and shoot down at them. Vang told investigators he did not realize he was on private property. Willers approached, asking why Vang was there and pointing out he was on private property. Vang said he told Willers he had not seen any "no trespassing" signs, climbed down from the stand and started to walk away.
Vang said he heard Willers call on a walkie-talkie, and five or six men on all-terrain vehicles approached a few moments later. Vang said the group surrounded him, and some used racial slurs. He said that he was told to get off the property, and as he started walking away, he turned back and saw Willers point a gun at him from about 100 feet away. He told investigators he immediately dropped to a crouch and Willers shot at him, the bullet hitting the ground 30 to 40 feet behind Vang.
Vang said he removed the scope from his rifle and began firing, continuing to shoot as the group scattered. He said one victim, Joey Crotteau, tried to run, but Vang chased him, got within 20 feet and shot him in the back. Crotteau, 20, was killed. Willers was wounded. Vang said as he began to run, an ATV with two people drove past and he fired three or four times, causing both people to fall off the machine. He said that he looked up the trail, saw that one of the men was standing, yelled, "You're not dead yet?" and fired in the man's direction. Vang said he then ran away.
~~~~~~
I've never understood hunting much. We live in a modern society with supermarkets teeming with meat. If deer meat was tasty humans would have domesticated deer long ago and deer meat would sit wrapped right next to sheep, cow and pig in the meat section. So it must be the "thrill" of the kill that motivates the "sport" of hunting. Somehow in Wisconsin that thrill got way out of control.
I'm an advocate for the control of guns. I don't buy into the NRA's "guns don't kill people, people kill people" sing song rhetoric. There are six dead people in Wisconsin that might now argue (if they could) that guns had alot to do with their death. Further the NRA's reason for advocating gun ownership "to defend oneself" sure didn't seem to have any effect in Wisconsin.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I read this amendment every once in awhile, and just don't see where hunting is applicable. Does hunting provide for the security of a free State? Are hunters part of a "well regulated Militia" or for that matter are any gun owners? Where is "defending oneself" in the Second Amendment? The only defending allowed in the Second Amendment is the security of a free State, what gun owner is really doing that? And besides do hunters even defend themselves from wild animals these days anyway?
Hunting is becoming a farce. Nary a soul hunts because they have no choice for putting food on the table. Just examine any hunting publication and see all the expensive equipment available for "providing food for the table" and the fallacy of poor people needing to hunt becomes trashed. Hunting has become a blood sport and at times a ludricrous one at that. The idea that releasing caged animals to immediately be slaughtered is hardly sporting, I could do that with my cat in my back yard. And the extent of all the trickery used in attracting game in the woods so that weekend hunters can get their kill without losing time from work is hardly sporting.
Sure there are still true sportsmen, but hunting like most of American life is made to be quick and easy on a weekend vacation. I personally know a few guys whose routine is to rent a cabin, hit a strip joint, get drunk, wake early with the hangover and get out to the deer blind for a few more drinks and maybe what they supposedly are there for, a kill to brag about at work. Sure this is not typical of all hunters, but these are the type that are multiplying. And these are the type who don't understand the danger they are.
The Wisconsin incident is an abberation to be sure, but not a surprise. In Michigan for instance from 1990 to 2000, there were 46 deaths and 528 injuries due to hunting. Michigan like Wisconsin also has had a hunting homicide or two in recent history. I suppose there are risks in life for just about anything. So if these modern hunters want to end up being killed rather than actually hunting that's up to them I guess. I personally decided long ago, count me out, I've got better things to do. Link
~~~~~~
A Hmong immigrant suspected of killing six fellow deer hunters in the Wisconsin woods told investigators that he opened fire after they took a shot at him first and yelled racial slurs, according to court papers filed Tuesday. Vang's description of events differs sharply from the one authorities provided the day before, based on survivors' testimony, which described the rampage as an unprovoked attack. Sawyer County Sheriff James Meier said Monday that Vang inexplicably turned on the hunting party and began shooting after being told to leave the property. One witness, Lauren Hesebeck, who was wounded in the shootings, said a member of the hunting party shot at Vang only after he started firing at them, according to court documents.
According to Vang's story, he got lost while hunting on public land and ended up in the vacant tree stand -- a raised platform used by hunters to see deer and shoot down at them. Vang told investigators he did not realize he was on private property. Willers approached, asking why Vang was there and pointing out he was on private property. Vang said he told Willers he had not seen any "no trespassing" signs, climbed down from the stand and started to walk away.
Vang said he heard Willers call on a walkie-talkie, and five or six men on all-terrain vehicles approached a few moments later. Vang said the group surrounded him, and some used racial slurs. He said that he was told to get off the property, and as he started walking away, he turned back and saw Willers point a gun at him from about 100 feet away. He told investigators he immediately dropped to a crouch and Willers shot at him, the bullet hitting the ground 30 to 40 feet behind Vang.
Vang said he removed the scope from his rifle and began firing, continuing to shoot as the group scattered. He said one victim, Joey Crotteau, tried to run, but Vang chased him, got within 20 feet and shot him in the back. Crotteau, 20, was killed. Willers was wounded. Vang said as he began to run, an ATV with two people drove past and he fired three or four times, causing both people to fall off the machine. He said that he looked up the trail, saw that one of the men was standing, yelled, "You're not dead yet?" and fired in the man's direction. Vang said he then ran away.
~~~~~~
I've never understood hunting much. We live in a modern society with supermarkets teeming with meat. If deer meat was tasty humans would have domesticated deer long ago and deer meat would sit wrapped right next to sheep, cow and pig in the meat section. So it must be the "thrill" of the kill that motivates the "sport" of hunting. Somehow in Wisconsin that thrill got way out of control.
I'm an advocate for the control of guns. I don't buy into the NRA's "guns don't kill people, people kill people" sing song rhetoric. There are six dead people in Wisconsin that might now argue (if they could) that guns had alot to do with their death. Further the NRA's reason for advocating gun ownership "to defend oneself" sure didn't seem to have any effect in Wisconsin.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I read this amendment every once in awhile, and just don't see where hunting is applicable. Does hunting provide for the security of a free State? Are hunters part of a "well regulated Militia" or for that matter are any gun owners? Where is "defending oneself" in the Second Amendment? The only defending allowed in the Second Amendment is the security of a free State, what gun owner is really doing that? And besides do hunters even defend themselves from wild animals these days anyway?
Hunting is becoming a farce. Nary a soul hunts because they have no choice for putting food on the table. Just examine any hunting publication and see all the expensive equipment available for "providing food for the table" and the fallacy of poor people needing to hunt becomes trashed. Hunting has become a blood sport and at times a ludricrous one at that. The idea that releasing caged animals to immediately be slaughtered is hardly sporting, I could do that with my cat in my back yard. And the extent of all the trickery used in attracting game in the woods so that weekend hunters can get their kill without losing time from work is hardly sporting.
Sure there are still true sportsmen, but hunting like most of American life is made to be quick and easy on a weekend vacation. I personally know a few guys whose routine is to rent a cabin, hit a strip joint, get drunk, wake early with the hangover and get out to the deer blind for a few more drinks and maybe what they supposedly are there for, a kill to brag about at work. Sure this is not typical of all hunters, but these are the type that are multiplying. And these are the type who don't understand the danger they are.
The Wisconsin incident is an abberation to be sure, but not a surprise. In Michigan for instance from 1990 to 2000, there were 46 deaths and 528 injuries due to hunting. Michigan like Wisconsin also has had a hunting homicide or two in recent history. I suppose there are risks in life for just about anything. So if these modern hunters want to end up being killed rather than actually hunting that's up to them I guess. I personally decided long ago, count me out, I've got better things to do. Link
posted by jon at 2:44 PM
3 Comments:
My employer recently went on his annual deer hunt and bagged a "bonus bear". He spent the whole day at work telling us how much his hands hurt from dragging that dead bear which must have been "one of the largest in Washington State". When I listen to hunter stories, one thing that bothers me most is the overwhelming "pride" they have at introducing this blood sport to children. And so it goes, generation upon generation of blood lust frenzy being passed down.
P.S. That glorious now dead bear is a wall trophy. Perhaps my employer has a really small penis and needs to "prove" his manhood. I don't get it. Good article.
>So it must be the "thrill" of the kill that motivates >the "sport" of hunting. Somehow in Wisconsin that >thrill got way out of control.
I live in Northern Minnesota. There is an element to which you are right, but again, you are generalizing. There are plenty of people here in Minnesota (we are about 50 miles from the shooting) who prefer wild game. They shoot ducks, geese, grouse. They fish heavily. The fact is that while beef and pork are more popular overall, there is a significant contingent of folks who prefer harvesting deer.
There are many reasons for this. One is that there are ALOT of deer. Too many. The DNR depends on the deer being culled through the hunting season. They have extended that season and the overall deer bagging limits to 5 deer each, allowed more liberal taking of does, and other changes to the licencing.
Another reason is this: Some people do not like to support the cattle and pork industry, and prefer wild game. The lives of deer are a relatively normal one unitl the moment they are killed. They participate in the normal cycle of life. While this is only true of a relatively small group of people, that number is growing. There are no such expectations from the meat industry, especially the pork industry.
There are other things that I might point out. There are people in this area who hunt deer because they are poor. The northern reaches of our state are quite impoversished. This is not to say they cant afford meat, but that venison is very cheap. It is lean, good meat for those who can get used to it (it does have a distinct flavor that many dont like, especially if it is prepared poorly). My best friend used to have to go out with his dad to shoot deer at night because he would not take handouts from the government. He found it too humiliating to talk with Government people who treated people who had been laid off from the mines like lazy pieces of shit.
I will conceed that some people shoot for a blood sport. But there are a TON of people here who harvest deer to fill their freezers, and who enjoy hunting as a way to participate in feeding yourself off the land.
>I'm an advocate for the control of guns. I don't buy >into the NRA's "guns don't kill people, people kill >people" sing song rhetoric.
I used to believe that controlling guns was a good thing. I don't anymore. It is really quite a small issue. You cant take away people's guns. It will never happen. Ever. So why do we progressives think we should keep trying? It causes resentment for the rest of our causes. Republicans have since become the party of Gun owners, Many of whom vote soley on that issue. It is a major distraction from the real issues of poverty, racism, classism, ageism, and the war against immigrants and prisoners. Why do we need to control guns? What real value does it hold for the American public when there are tens of millions of Guns already out there?
Foston
I can understand a sort of defeatism in your comments about gun control.
>>>I used to believe that controlling guns was a good thing. I don't anymore. It is really quite a small issue. You cant take away people's guns. It will never happen. Ever. So why do we progressives think we should keep trying? It causes resentment for the rest of our causes. Republicans have since become the party of Gun owners, Many of whom vote soley on that issue. It is a major distraction from the real issues of poverty, racism, classism, ageism, and the war against immigrants and prisoners. Why do we need to control guns? What real value does it hold for the American public when there are tens of millions of Guns already out there?<<<
Why do we need to control guns? Because many Americans get blasted out of existence on a daily basis by other people with guns.
Why do progressives keep trying? The same reason we keep trying to end poverty, racism, classism, ageism, etc. because the problems continue to exist. Because part of being a progressive is the long term goal of an elusive utopian society. Will poverty in America ever end? I don't know, why bother trying to end it? Why bother trying to end racism if racists will always exist? Progressives bother because we have a core belief that every little change we advance improves our society.
Progressives also have no problem looking around the world for better ideas and examples of issues in other societies that we would like to apply to America if we find something better. Our founding fathers did this when creating the Constitution and forming our democracy. So, progressives see that in many other countries arms control is working much better than here (we have always had arms control in some sense and always will unless someday we all can collect nukes in our garage). We see that plenty of first world countries have extreme low rates of gun deaths compared to America.
Further, arms control is certainly part of the Constitution. We have the Supreme Court rulings that support gun control by states because of their interpretation of the Second Amendment. The idea that guns are for personal protecton is a myth propagated by the NRA. In fact I believe that the states are completely negligent in addressing the use of guns to kill humans. States could and should take greater steps to know who owns guns, who is allowed to own guns and in what circumstances the guns are used.
The Second Amendment is quite clear in explaining what reason people are allowed to keep and bear arms, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and it is equally quite clear that American keep and bear arms for nowhere near this reason.
Recently when Congress would not renew the ban on assault weapons, polls had been consistently showing that 70% of Americans wanted the renewal. So, don't think the Republicans represent the wishes of Americans on gun control. That was another issue that John Kerry wouldn't distinguish himself from Bush. Kerry could have easily made that a campaign issue, even citing the polling to show Americans were not on the Bush side.
Instead, Kerry went hunting two weeks before election day to court gun owners. I doubt rich man Kerry bagging a goose swayed even one voter, except a few progressives who might have stayed home to avoid voting for such a blatant photo-opportunist. Kerry should have made hay about the non-renewal of the assault weapons ban like an opposition candidate should have and then never went hunting as it wasn't going to endear him to his base or gain Republican voters.
Better arms control of American citizens is certainly a goal that can be improved upon. And just like so many progressive issues that in the wake of the election seem to not matter, it does matter. Progressives have work to do to reframe so many issues, to take back the initiative that has been eroded away by the Republican noise machine.
When 70% of Americans wanted the assault weapons ban renewed and Republicans ignore that and still win elections, that speaks volumns that the issue wasn't pounched on by progressives and that progressives are not really represented by Democrats enough. 70% of Americans side with progressives on that issue, but Washington doesn't side with those 70%, the equation is unbalanced. And certainly the assault weapons ban was weak and had loopholes but closing the loopholes isn't likely to happen without Washington even supporting those 70% of Americans.
I may feel that as a progressive I'm becoming some sort of a hermit in my own country, but also because I'm a progressive I won't give up trying to improve on things.
Post a Comment
<< Home