Slashdot Mirror
Texas Lawmaker Wants To Let the Blind Hunt
IHC Navistar writes with a story from Reuters Oddly Enough. A Texas lawmaker has introduced a measure that would allow blind people to hunt any game that sighted people can currently pursue. The article notes that the bill may have clear sailing in the hunting-besotted state of Texas. An education outreach person from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department explained it this way: "A blind person can shoot a rifle by mounting an offset pistol scope on the side of the rifle instead of on top. This allows their companion behind them to peer over their shoulder and help them sight it, but the blind person can pull the trigger."
It's not that big of a surprise. With Chuck Norris prowling the area, they figure that everyone has a right to take their chances.
Look on the bright side. They'll never see it coming! (The roundhouse kick to the face, that is...)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
the number of incidents of people getting 'peppered' around the face will totally increase.
bravo, guys.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
They can even make them their own hunting season. Please!!!
/whisper/ Thanks for the candy!
How fitting.
See any serious problems with this story? Email our on-duty editor.
Dear on-duy editor:
Um, yes?
That has got to be the stupidest thing I ever heard. What next, blind people driving cars?
For fscks sake.
Shit. I can't think of any funny Dick Cheney jokes.
...blind Texans does it take to shoot out a light bulb?
(sorry, it's the best joke I could think of)
mandelbr0t
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
Does the law contain a "You killed it, you clean it!" provision?
-- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
sometimes the USA is more retarded then middle east nations.
What could possibly go wrong?
------
beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
Why not let them join the infantry sniper teams then.
http://ebgp.net/ccc/
You think this is funny? I've got some incredible stories for you then. Get this. The other day - I'm in the grocery store and there is this guy walking around with a dog! In the store! Really, no kidding. A dog in the store and this guy is holding onto a harness the dog was wearing and the dog was leading the guy around. Can you believe it? Somebody should write up a funny post about dogs who shop for humans. That's a knee slapper.
But that's not the funniest. A week before that I saw this lady out on the sidewalk waving this big white stick all over the place. Talk about from the "don't hit me dept.", she was wacking all kinds of stuff with that stick. Hide the kids! Oh man, I still laugh until I get tears in my eyes over this one.
Last year my brother took a friend of ours with ALS on the last deer hunt of his life. My brother did everything for this guy but pull the trigger. Took a lot of time to rig things up to make that possible. And someone who is unfortunate enough to be blind should be able to go hunting with some assistance. The only reason anyone would find this funny is if they are willing to completely ignore what the hunting entails and just laugh at another's misfortune. Maybe I'm wrong to be bothered by this - but I think it is sad that I'm seeing it in so many places being presented as a humorous story.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I guess I don't really have a problem with the blind shooting guns, assuming that it's properly supervised. The real issue I see here is that the bill apparently makes some technologies, like lazer sites, legal. Why do the blind need technologies designed to be seen? How long till every hunter wants these techs? It seems more likely to me that this is the thin edge of the wedge opening the way for general use of these 'forbiden' technologies.
Mr. Chaney was quoted as saying, "If I'm allowed to hunt, anyone should be. Heck, they probably have better aim than me!"
I've got a good friend who's rapidly becoming a gun-nut... odd for a Canadan, I guess the states are finally seeping in to him.
Anyway, he's legally blind, just invested a very nice new car's worth of money into a Guide Dog, and has better groupings than most of the first-time shooters I've yet met.
This might be a problem for the totally blind, but there are a lot of folks considered blind by the state who are perfectly capable at IDing a target, and moving lead down-range in a manner at least as safe as a sighted person. Probably more-so when you consider the extra carefulness that the average legally blind person puts into doubting their visual input.
Of course, there could be problems, but one thing I've found is most people aren't total dumb-asses. If you're unable to hunt safely, you probably won't actually want to hunt.
(This isn't to discount the hijinks that ensue when you show up to an open range with a nice rifle, nice optics, and a guide dog in tow. That's a `priceless` moment that I hope to see again often in my life)
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
Did I hit anything?
"Piter, too, is dead."
"A blind person can drive a car with a passenger seat. This allows their companion beside them to help them sight the road, but the blind person can press the peddles and steer."
Only in Texas.
PS. Daily Show covered something similar (can't find the original segment, but clips of it are in the video)
I am a Texan, and I seriously do object to the characterization of my state as "hunting-besotted". Note: this post is not intended to be humorous. I am aware that most (at least I hope) people will recognize this characterization as hyperbole, but from many other things that I have read and heard, there remain a significant number of people who will not. Therefore, while I am certainly not demanding that nobody ever say this about Texas, I do wish to speak up and be heard when I assert that this is, in fact, hyperbole. Hyperbole has its place in satire and parody (and other forms of mockery), but it should be countered (as opposed to censored or removed) unless it is known that everyone recognizes it as satire and parody. Texas is not "hunting-besotted".
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
This is all part of a larger plan to increase the pool of Iraq recruits.
.."
"No... don't you worry Bud, I'm right behind you
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
next theyll suggest they should be allowed to drive, with a sighted passenger riding shotgun. what the hell is the world coming to, canada is looking mighty inviting lately.
What's next? Blind men having a déjà vu's?
... but I don't see the logic of it.
...Dick Cheney has announced his failing sight.
#include <disclaimer.h>
#include <beer.h>
ok charlie, thats the wind blowing not cars silly. you hear that thing that sounds like my ex wife? well, thats actually a big fat moose. i got you lined up. fire at will.
You constantly struggle for self improvement - and it shows.
Hooray for bad Engrish on fortune cookies
I fail to see why a blind person shouldn't be able to hunt when they've got a non-blind person looking through the sights for them. Many of you that don't come from big hunting areas won't understand why a blind person would want to go hunting, but those of us in hunting states (WI here) know that hunting is more about family and friends than just shooting an animal. I don't hunt myself, but if I did, I wouldn't care if there were blind hunters out there observing proper safety techniques. No hunter should shoot without knowing what they're aiming at, and a blind hunter is no exception.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
Why is this here?
Still no cure for cancer. Boobies! It's a trap!
(nfm)
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I think it was Gallagher who was talking about this years ago, and he said, "when you're walking through the forest, how do you make a sound that's NOT like a rabbit?"
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
As a Texan and a hunter/fisherman, this is both very interesting and worrying to me. When the guide sights in on a hunting buddy who pissed him off the other day, does the blind guy get a charge of A) Negligent Manslaughter B) Murder C) Involuntary Manslaughter or does he get charged as an accomplice in the case, sharing the guide's sentence/charge?
#include <disclaimer.h>
#include <beer.h>
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
Circumcision is child abuse.
I'm not a hunter. I think hunting is icky. I distrust anything that tends to celebrate the enjoyment of bloodshed, even animal bloodshed. I don't own a gun. I think the Second Amendment is talking about the state militia. OK?
But I think that hunters have the right to hunt as long as they aren't harming other human beings. I don't care for it but there are lots of things people do that I don't like that fall under the heading of "none of my business."
Now, letting the blind hunt sounds like a joke. But, given the same degree of responsibility and care, I don't see a blind-plus-sighted hunting team would be any more dangerous to human bystanders than a sighted hunter.
I think the main danger is from hunters whose judgement is impaired e.g. because of alcohol, and frankly I think this is less likely to happen in the situation as described, which requires a good deal of cooperation and trust between the parties concerned. I don't think a blind person would want to entrust an intoxicated person to lead him around for long distances on uneven ground. I don't think a sighted person would want to share a loaded firearm with an intoxicated person.
So, I don't see the harm in it. It seems weird to me, but it's none of my business. More power to 'em.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Meanwhile, bills are being introduced that will allow middle-school drop-outs to teach high school as long as they are paired with someone with a teaching degree telling them what to say, allow 5-year-olds to drive cars as long as they have an adult to work the pedals for them, and formally entitle idiots to run for governor (and then president) as long as they "surround themselves with the right people".
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Among hunters, hunting is a lot more than pulling a trigger and killing something. It's more about the very primal action of pursuing an animal for food. (Most hunters I know do in fact eat what they kill). It takes a lot of skill, and years to learn: where and when the animals gather, how to sit quietly and patiently, how to observe. All of those are skills you once had to develop if you wanted to eat.
The ultimate kill with a rifle is only the very end of the process. It's kinder than the older methods, such as a bow and arrow, which often wound an animal without killing it, and you have to track it to put it out of its misery. A rifle can drop an animal immediately.
If you eat meat, you can hardly claim that having somebody else kill your dinner puts you on a higher moral plane, especially if you've seen the way animals are treated in our factory-farms. Hunting puts you directly in touch with what you're eating, guts and blood and all.
So it sounds silly at first blush, but the blind can be active participants in a hunt. They still have ears and even noses; they can still be outside; they still eat what they kill; they still have the camaraderie of a hunting party. If the technology lets them participate even more fully in the process, why not?
There are, by the way, an awful lot of hunters who hunt for other reasons. Some will use a lot of high-tech to make it practically shooting fish in a barrel; they seem to care more about the kill than the hunt. I know they exist, but that does not describe most hunters in my experience.
I myself do not hunt, but I limit my animal products when I can to ones I believed were raised and slaughtered humanely.
This is already legal in Michigan.
This bill will not decrease hunting safety, except maybe for the animals who would otherwise go un-killed. I am surprised and somewhat insulted to see this story poo-poohed in the press.
This was considered seriously in the last legislative session after a would-be hunter couldn't get a license due to blindness. Texas keeps its legislative sessions short and it's not unusual for a bill to die because of the calendar.
Expect this bill to pass.
Modding the parent post "Funny" would be funny.
This post climbed Mt. Washington.
Killing creatures for *recreation* is fundamentally unethical because the hunter is inflicting suffering as a part of merely obtaining recreation.
So, it's absurd. Does that make it news on slashdot? Apparently, it does.
Hunters blind you!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
My son has a friend who is totally blind. They go into the woods whenever they get a chance. My son's friend loves to shoot sling shots, airsoft guns, paint ball guns and arrows. At first, I thought this was a bad idea, but as long as my son's friend has a sighted person with him, he doesn't have a problem. I'm not sure he ever hits anything, but he has a lot of fun.
After being around this guy a while, I realized there aren't a lot of things he can't do.
I decline to comment
Asshole.
#include <disclaimer.h>
#include <beer.h>
Did you know that there is equipment that allows the blind to do target shooting? The version I've seen discussed on the web uses an optical sighting device, and sound feedback to the shooter (the sound changes as they get closer to the bulls-eye). It turns out that even with such a sighting device, target shooting is still very very difficult, because the real problem in accuracy is not eyesight, but muscle control (in particular the interaction of moving the trigger finger with holding the gun steady). I've heard that blind target shooters can achieve respectable scores using this technique, although the traditional Mark I eyeball is still much preferable.
If there is a technological solution that allows blind people to sensibly go hunting, and do so safely, why the heck shouldn't they do it? Clearly, the technical difficulties are much higher for hunting, as a blind person is unable to locate the game by sight, may have great difficulty getting into the forest and navigate in there. As an extreme example, if a helper has to go into the forest, find the game, aim the rifle, clean the game, and transport it back out, and all the blind person is doing is sitting in a warm office, listening over a walkie-talkie, and pressing the trigger button when told to do so, that would indeed be silly, and should not be considered hunting at all.
As a less extreme example: In many (most?) states, it is illegal to hunt from a vehicle (meaning it is illegal to discharge the gun while still in the vehicle). Some states have special exceptions that allow wheelchair-bound hunters to shoot from their vehicles. I think this is perfectly reasonable, if safety precautions are followed.
Can't do any worse than Chaney (Vice President) did in the same state.
Now they just need to combine it with this: http://p2pnet.net/story/4447
Texas isn't the first state to allow blind hunting. Michigan has been doing this for quite some time, basically the same rules, except the blind guy needs a laser scope so the sighted companion can be sure where he's pointing. Incidentally, David Sedaris did a great comedy bit about this, and pointed out that Michigan was even crazier than Texas. Not any more.
You'll see one day they'll allow morons to be elected... hey, wait !
What will a blind person get as a reward for killing something? If your companion is there with you, how will they feel in danger at any time? Do they still experience the thrill of the hunt, when they can't see the deer standing out in the field? When deer don't move they are quite silent.
Don't get me wrong. If a blind man or woman wants to hunt, I guess I could see it as long as they are with someone that can spot down range and see that there are no houses there, but it still comes down to the aspect that they are not the one's sighting it in. Sure they are controlling their breathing for accuracy and pulling the trigger, but who's to blame if the gun slips and richocets off a rock into the companions skull?
Wouldn't they get the same thrill by going to a target range?
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
the lawmaker's proposal is called the dick cheney bill
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Hell no!
Seriously, people, at least read the snippet that /. posted before you slam and make fun of this idea!
As the article says, it would allow a blind person to have a seeing companion that would get the target in sight, and allow the blind hunter to pull the trigger. It would not be a safety hazard IMHO. I think it would do as the lawmaker is suggesting and open the fun of hunting to more people.
And yes, I'm from Texas.
do {print "Mini-Geek Rules!\n";}
until ($TheEndOfTheWorld);
It seems silly, and not exactly smart, but I didnt know it was against the law.
Let a blindman into the strip club and see (pun) what happens!
Lets say they accidentally shot someone somehow...who is liable? The person who told the blind person to fire or the blind person for pulling the trigger?
I'm sorry if I sound like a dick, but life isn't fair. Being blind means that hunting (as well as driving and a whole host of other things) is just one of those things that you are not going to be able to do.
I'd be really curious as to what their motivation is as well...I mean, not trying to judge...but isn't the point of hunting the skill involved in tracking and bagging your kill? If someone else is doing all of that for you, really the only thing you're doing is pulling a trigger that kills an animal. I'd go so far as to say that the blind person would really just be doing the easy wrap-up of someone elses kill.
But this brings up another point...if all they're doing is pulling the trigger since they can't sight targets...why not just let them loose in a room with some ambient forest noises, some animal noise sound board (complete with death sounds) and a fan or 2 to simulate wind and let them loose with a gun loaded with blanks?
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
why shouldn't the blind be allowed the pleasure of walking for miles on end carrying heavy weaponry, sit for hours and hours in a cramped little deer stand swatting away the fire-ants & mosquitoes, only to finally get a chance to kill a good sized deer, only to miss the deer completely because the previously mentioned fire-ants found their way up your pants' leg and are now chewing happily away on "mister happy"??
hell make'im field dress the damn thing too while you're at it... nothing says outdoor fun like nearly cutting off your own finger.
Next: Darts for the blind! Completely safe!
The damn Mule deer population is really bad there and a night drive on a back road is quite an experience trying to avoid herds of 10 to 50 every few miles. Texas rats.
New use for hunting dogs. Let the dog go, wait for a second. Aim for the barking...
Well, we already let the tone deaf sing on national TV.
Seeing how a lot of folk are blind drunk while hunting.....
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The law allows this only if the legally-blind hunter is assisted by a sighted person. I'm guessing that the blind will now be the best buddies of anyone who wants to install a laser-scope on their rifle.
"Oh, yes, Game Warden! My best buddy here with the coke-bottle glasses nailed that sucker right in the brainpan."
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
"A blind person can shoot a rifle by mounting an offset pistol scope on the side of the rifle instead of on top," said Terry Erwin, the Austin-based Hunter Education Coordinator with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
"This allows their companion behind them to peer over their shoulder and help them sight it, but the blind person can pull the trigger," he told Reuters.
Does this seem like extraordinary lengths to go to to make sure every American has the right to shoot stuff? I'm not even sure that just pulling the trigger would be a satisfying alternative to sighted hunting. I'm not a hunter, so I could be wrong. But it seems like a lot of work just so you can hear a loud noise and increase your chances of a bad accident.
But more to the point, an example. I have a moderate (sometimes severe) stutter that worsens on the telephone and under stress. I have never thought that I had a God-given right to be a 911 operator. It's not about my rights -- it's about the potential pitfalls of my answering very high-intensity, life-changing phone calls. Why is it someone's right to shoot a gun at (hopefully) an animal if they don't have the physical requirements to do it safely? I'm all for the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and every rational opportunity for everyone, and I do feel compassion for those who used to enjoy hunting but have now lost their sight. But many people have certain limitations which, in more high-performance cases like 911 call center operators or hunters, may well be too much of an obstacle to merit the profound risk it poses to others.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Anyway, if the blind want to hunt more power to them. Personally I usually view using a rifle as being too easy. Maybe all hunters should wear special eyegear to make everything really blurry to give the deer more of a sporting chance. It'd definitely make things interesting come hunting time. Either that or use a bowie knife. I'd totally have respect for a guy who hunted, say, wild boars or black bears using nothing but a bowie knife. Rifle... pfft...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Since I was conceived in my mommy's tummy I've had the right to bear arms. Just because the Lord Jesus Almighty didn't see fit to give me a working set of eyes don't take that right away. It's my right to shoot shit up, and ain't nobody going to stop me!!!
But having a blind person discharge a deadly weapon makes even less sense than brail in drive through tellers. Of course I never have been able to understand getting pleasure from destroying helpless creatures.
(Let the flaming begin!)
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
"The only reason anyone would find this funny is if they are willing to completely ignore what the hunting entails and just laugh at another's misfortune."
;)
Like the nice drive to the woods...oh wait someone else will do that.
Like searching for a good spot..oh wait someone else will need to do that.
Like tracking your game...oh wait that will be someone else.
Like aiming carefully...oh wait someone else again.
Like determine if safe to shoot...oh wait someone is responsible.
Pull trigger...BINGO
Determine if you hit something...oh wait back to someone else.
Collect your prize/trophy/food...oh wait someone will at least need to direct them to it and back.
Load it on/in car...Possible i suppose but since you already have an assistant....
Bring home...oh wait need someone to bring em home.
Show off prize kill...DONE
Nope, wouldn't want to deny them the hunting experience would you. I find it funny because hunting entails alot more than simply pulling the trigger when someone says GO.
I suppose if they find someone willing to take responsiblity we could let them. IF something does happen who do you sue/fine/lockup? The blind guy who pulled trigger or the guy saying GO ?!?!?
Who do you fine for overlimit or shooting wrong critter ?!? Aid says you missed when you hit it and gets a couple for himself. Fine the blind dude? Fine the aid that never fired a shot for shooting something someone else shouldn't have shot?
If answer is fine the blind dude, sounds like blind could be taken advantage of pretty easy. Fine the aid sounds pretty iffy.
I course i would want equal rights for blind bow hunters
Sounds like more problems created than solved. How many blind people can be clamouring for hunting rights anyway?
Anyway, he's legally blind, just invested a very nice new car's worth of money into a Guide Dog, and has better groupings than most of the first-time shooters I've yet met.
;) Around here though most first time shooters are about 8-10 years of age and are just as likely to throw a stick for the dog.
;)
Sounds like a damned good dog. Now if they can teach it to fetch ducks that's worth some money.
Seriously though, the difference is 'legally blind' versus 'blind'. Contrary to popular belief these are not the same thing. One can see well enough to shoot through a scope, but not enough to drive. Legally blind is (IIRC) defined by vision level, not total lack of sight capability. Personally I wouldn't want a legally blind person to NOT use a scope. The scope would serve to bring the 'picture' of down range to within normal sight capability.
That said, there should still be a limit. 100% blindness, for example should not be allowed to shoot guns in the open if at all. That's asking for trouble. Certain types, if not all types, of color blindness also should be limited if allowed. Anything that prevents you from making an easy unmistakable differentiation between orange and anything nature colored (browns, greys, blacks, yellows, whites, etc.).
That said, the reference is to enjoying the sport of hunting. The sport of hunting does not consist solely of pulling a trigger. If that were the case you could do just fine at your local gun range. Any real hunter (as opposed to keyboard/joystick/controller jockeys) will tell you that the shootign of the game is only the peak. Said peak can only be achieved by going through the hunting process - camping, tracking, sneaking, etc.. I've had my targets picked for me as a kid. It was nowhere near what the full process was.
If you're unable to hunt safely, you probably won't actually want to hunt.
Change hunting to "drive a car" (or "vote" hehe). Still stand by that statement? Google for "Dick+Cheney+hunting".
I've seen *many* people want to and go hunting who are very much unable to hunt safely. No offense to Californians but nearly all of them have been CA transplants to mountainous areas. It isn't inherent to CA people, just big city people (wow that sounds hickish) who haven't had experience and training in it.
The only reason anyone would find this funny is if they are willing to completely ignore what the hunting entails
IMO by claiming hunting is about pulling the trigger on something aimed at a living creature, you are ignoring 'what the hunting entails'. It is called hunting and not 'shooting living targets' for a good reason.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
This just makes me think of David Sedaris' essay "Six to Eight Black Men", where he comments (briefly) on this phenomenon in Michigan. The essay can be read here, but really it's better listened to (Episode 201, Act 2) - for whatever reason, his writing is always experienced better when read by him.
That green slime had it coming.
N/t
you had me at #!
They let drunken assholes like Dick Cheney hunt - and then cover up for him when he shoots someone.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
So you'd say, that blind people should not be allowed in an amusement park or in city parks or on national park trails or anywhere else that is not required simply for them to live.
Would you also like small spikes embedded in the little boxes we keep them in?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What's next? Letting blind people own sharks?
c++;
And how long do ya think it'll be before we hear "well he said I was aiming at a deer so I pulled the trigger" at a murder case. Sounds like a pretty bad idea. I personally think everyone should have to hide in trees with hunting knives or spears and jump the deer because hitting a deer with a super long range, high powered rifle is way too easy even if you were blind. I think blind people could totally do that too :-P I would however like to see it legalized to hunt with high powered red gas airsoft guns like a super 9 with .33g aluminum rounds. That's the only legal "gun" that could kill someone that doesn't need a waiting period lol. In the meantime though, if you see someone with big, dark glasses and a marked stick and a rifle in the woods, I'd get behind something bulletproof.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
I mean, that's what I keep hearing from conservatives when I complain that some things in the USA need to change.
Blar.
Big talk mister for someone who likely uses the whole of society as a giant machine that, in part, kills animals for us - the ultimate hunting tool.
Just because some people like to be outside for a while and actually understand what it means to take the life of an animal and then eat, does not make them wrong. It just makes them better informed than most.
Also if you understood what a serious problem rising deer populations are you would welcome hunters, for the deer are crowding out other forms of wildlife.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
My mind is boggling. This is just astonishingly pointless. The person pulling the trigger just hears a loud bang...
Even for the gun crazed US this is a new low.
Then again, given the number of times US forces have fired on their allies, one might be forgiven
for thinking they already have plenty of blind shooters-in the army!
Your national passion for violence is disturbing to civilised nations.
This is the biggest bullcrap I heard in a good few days period of time.
:o
Besides: blind people rely a lot on their ears. Ears + guns=bad. Someone supervising+talking + ear protection = bad.
Hunting = bad. To get a gun permit you need to see where you shoot.
I do not understand what is the good feeling in killing something that is in the nature, and watching it die, so I agree that for bling people who only do it to "BE A MAN" might be less disturbing.
I would alltogether deny hunting instead of giving guns to people who cannot see.
You can disagree with me, but I have to let it out:
if you shoot at animals and you have fun doing it, you are a bad person, with the exception of those few who have to hunt their food, or the ones that do it in self defense.
No, seriously, whoever made that a reality is a moron. People are sick, they enjoy killing something, but killing something while not even seeing it?
Then go to a shooting range and not hurt anything, they can pull the trigger there too, and no one has to really aim.
OMG where is this planet heading
Killing creatures for *recreation* is fundamentally unethical because the hunter is inflicting suffering
No, hunting is about gathering food for most people, and also people serving the role of predators that have declined - deer populations are rising dramatically, and they are actually destroying habitat for other animals which leads to far more painful deaths. The aspect of wandering around in the woods in recreation, but for most people the killing is not.
Also, hunters are always trying for a clean kill that does not cause suffering to the animal involved. It's a lot better for the animal than the cows that go to slaghterhouses, so if you eat meat at all hunters are at least one step above you ethically - at least they look at what they are eating in the eye. Also a hunter killing an animal is going to be a lot less painful than a natural death at the hands (or claws) of a predator.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why is this article tagged with "texas, cheney, dick cheney?" May I please moderate the tags?
If the Founding Fathers were alive today, they'd tell us - "the government has gone insane, and must be overthrown"! Or, at the very least, they'd be campaigning for the more radical Libertarian candidates.
The sole purpose of the government they created, other than keeping England from re-invading, was supposed to be to enforce the laws that protect the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property of the citizens! It wasn't supposed to have the power to decide who can hunt, what they hunt, or how they hunt it!
So who's going to be held responsible if someone gets killed? The shooter or the one who told them to do it?
People of course enjoy being outdoors, but a lot of people really do hunt for the meat - the blind should be able to get fresh meat as readily as anyone, if they are able.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
America still allows sport hunting. If an individual can hunt safely and legally, have at it.
If reasonable accomodations can be made to make a "sport" accessible to the disabled, let's do it.
But isn't hunting a man vs. nature contest, where the hunter must outsmart, outsneak and accurately kill his prey? By the time a blind hunter compensates for his disability by having a guide direct his actions and help him aim, hasn't all the "sport" been taken out?
There is nothing in the article accounting for the legal responsibility of what happens if indeed someone gets unintentionally (or intentionally) in the way and gets killed. would it be the person pressing the trigger or the person behind who actually aimed. it would be a rather tricky legal case.
The blind person would argue that he/she simple pressed the trigger when told to in the belief that he/she was shooting some game. the person who aimed would say that they did indeed said not to shoot as something happened at the last second but that the other person ignored the warning or was too slow to react.
Here neither parties are entirely in control of the situation, therefore how can legal responsibility be fully established?
The shooting, if it happens, is only a small part of hunting. If a blind person has trudged through the woods, been bitten by bugs, etc etc then they've done the hard yards regardless of whether they pull the trigger or not.
Personally, I'd have more of an issue with wheelchar bound people shooting penned up game from a vehicle since that would really defeat the purpose of hunting.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
A family friend of mine is blind and deer hunts. Now that may sound crazy, but how it really works is he gets a special permit to hunt that requires another registered hunter is with him at all times and that hunter aims the blind persons gun for them and tells them when to shoot. As far as I am aware there has never been a blind related hunting accident in Wisconsin.
..Saying no to blind people driving while saying yes to them shooting guns then you my friend need serious professional help The rest of the world (including most likely majority of blind people) are laughing at this stupid crap for a very good reason, it's a stupid law
So send a few Dept. Wildlife people out there to cull the population, bring the animals back and give to a charity for distribution to the needy. I don't really have anything against hunting (it's boring) but your argument doesn't really make sense.
Blar.
just bring the blind person to a shooting range. They won't know the difference!!
blind people. with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!
Big surprise. I'm glad to see the idiocy running from the mouths of republicans shows no sign of halting. From Mr. "Internet is a Series of Tubes, and a Bridge to Nowhere" Ted, to "Foot-in-Mouth" Lott, to "Man on Dog" Santorum, to "Unlicensed Diagnosis of a Brain Dead Woman from the Floor" Frist, to "Stay The Coarse? I Never Stayed Stay the Course" Bush, to "The Insurgency is in it's Final Throes" Cheney, to "I can't imagine the war lasting more than 6 months" Rumsfeld...
Too bad History books are regional in this country: the content varies from state to state depending on what the board of education deems appropriate.
So somehow, the act of pressing a button to activate a machine to kill an unseen animal is itself the 'hunting' experience. Not wandering in rugged bush for hours, stalking and killing the prey, then dragging its carcass up a hill for miles. Just pressing a button on a remote control for the safe and hygienic thrill of execution.
I suppose the blind can be proper photographers too. Just have a friend set up the models, the lighting and the camera. The blind person can then experience the thrill of photography by pressing the shutter release button.
Blancmange
Now, not only can the blind lead the deaf and dumb, but they can shoot for them too!
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
Am I stupid because I'm not seeing the joke?
Texas! A place where Stormtroopers can hunt in peace!
I just aimed it, I didn't know if he'd shoot it or not.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
...people with no arms want the right to go fishing with dynamite, so that they can use their puffer straw.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Well, I guess I don't need to waste time reading anything kdawson has to say, I already know the bias.
OMG, Americans are so retarded. Next thing they'll demand to be able to drive cars
I spent five minutes stealing cool sigs and all I got was this.
What happens the first time someone who is assisting the blind person targets a person on purpose or accidentally?
;-)
Who is responsible, the person with the mis-information, or the person pulling the trigger?
Of course, this is corporate America, so I'm guessing that the law will go after the blind person, but I want to know what you think...
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
I didn't pull the trigger, I only lined up the gun, the Blind guy pulled the trigger!
Quite the opposite-- but you're making the assumption that I oppose allowing blind people to hunt. I never said that. I have no problem with this being legal. I do think it's stupid, and probably unethical, that's not the same thing. If a blind person chooses to allow a sighted person to make this enormous of a judgment for him or her, so be it. Live with the consequences of your actions.
Most activities a person engages in expose yourself and other people to risk. Every time I get on the highway, the other drivers are subject to me making good choices with my car, and I'm dependent on them not making bad choices. Hunting is very safe (certainly, compared w/ my commute on a San Diego freeway). But with anything you do, there's risk involved, even if what you do is munch Doritos and play WoW (RSI, obesity leading to diabetes & heart failure, etc etc). If I choose to walk into the woods during deer season, I'm making a choice and exposing myself to risk. I'm depending on other hunters to use good judgment in selecting their target and not pull the trigger when I'm in their sights, or downrange of their target. I just think anyone who chooses to let another person judge the safety of their shot, when they can't check the range themselves, is dumber than a bag of hammers.
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Oh, the pity. Poor blind bepole can not even kill some ugly wild animals without being laughted at.
You know, seal clubbing should be a lot easier for them.
Or, maybe, not being assholes.
Actually, IMHO (and IANAL) has a a precedent on this case- but only in Australia. In Aussieland a blind photographer can give instruction to another individual, and that individual can release the shutter, yet the blind person OWNS the copyright on the image.
I don't know if you understand the significance of that statement, but in this country WHOMEVER pushes the button that causes the media (digital or film) to be exposed to light OWNS the copyright. If I reach across you and mash your shutter button to catch a pulitzer- you get are the 'assistant' and I am the photographer. However Australia has gotten it right and awards it to the person that takes the photograph (in the creative sense) rather than the person that actually releases the shutter.
Of course that brings up several issues with slaved strobes and triggers (such as a sound trigger where a yell sets off the shutter) or a beam trigger (Where a basketball player breaks a beam of light at the optimum point to trigger a strobe)... but I can't and won't debate them there.
I hope you can see the difference between the laws we have now and the laws that could be.
after hitting a deer once driving through missouri and my wife almost hitting one the other night, i'm all for increasing the number of hunters out there thinning the herd and simultaneously increasing the amount of yummy deer jerky out there.
Get a gun and a friend. Go out to the woods. Put on a blindfold. Tell your friend to get you all lined up and to give you the go-ahead when the coast is clear. Do you "know what you are aiming at"? Can you pull the trigger without hesitation or question?
The point is that it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a blind person to actually know what they are aiming at. Hell, people who can see make enough mistakes as it is.
I agree with that other guy; I feel bad for the situation a blind person might be in, but there are just some things that people with certain disabilities cannot and should not be allowed to do.
"This allows their companion behind them to peer over their shoulder and help them sight it, but the blind person can pull the trigger."
Great! Now they too can experience the joy of killing an animal! So who is still arguing that this is about sport? It seems to me quite clear to be about some primal urge to want to kill things. This is morally indefensible.
You don't appear to understand that "blind" is frequently not absolute. Legally blind people can frequently still see, just not well. There is nothing intrinsically unsafe about legally blind people hunting, especially with a companion along to help with distances.
I suspect that you don't have much experience with firearms. While someone could, potentially, hit a target while blindfolded, it's much more difficult than it looks. Any theoretical totally blind person who manages to pass a marksmanship test is more a statistical anomaly than an example of "enough practice."
Oh, and in a more general response: Why does everyone have such a negative knee-jerk reaction toward hunting? I can understand the perceptions of TX, having lived there for a year, but hunting isn't limited to drunken, illiterate hillbillies.
do others also feel that humans should have had a predator smarter than itself to hunt them?
You understand what I am saying, don't you?
He gets all the kitty kibble he can eat-the expensive canned stuff too.
He still goes hunting everyday for the "sport" of it.
He doesn't even "trophy hunt" he just uses the crippled and then dead prey as a toy.
Perhaps you could reccomend a good book on "ethics" for him-FAG!
If you take the time and effort to go hunting just so you can make a kill, you will be disappointed. So much effort goes into the pre-hunt scout, the tracking, the planning, walking around in the bush, ect. Pulling the trigger shouldn't take you more than 2-3 seconds, and you'll be lucky if your prey wants to stay still for that long. If all your doing is pulling the trigger, then you're not hunting, you're just shooting animals. It might work different for you tree-standers in the south, but meh, I'm posting anyways.
What a patetic stinking pile of crap your post is. A real civilised human does not need to hunt. As usual the "I have a small dick but I own a gun to compensate lobby" is out in force. Yes people like you are "sniveling and whining basement trolls" , you are sooo brave, posting as an AC arent you? I mean all real leaders,would show their "bravery" by posting as an AC. Go away small minded one.
Rules of logic:
The contrapositive (A->B)->(~B->~A).
Your statement: If you eat meat, you can hardly claim that having somebody else kill your dinner puts you on a higher moral plane
A: you eat meat
B: you cannot claim that having somebody else kill your dinner puts you on a higher moral plane
Contrapositive that you therefore are also advocating:
~B: you CAN claim that having somebody else kill your dinner puts you on a higher moral plane
~A: you do not eat meat.
Therefore, you believe the following:
If you can claim that having someone else kill your dinner puts you on a higher moral plane, you do not eat meat.
Wow, that's wacky.
Why does this need to be an explicit law?
Whatever happened to the idea that anything not explicitly prohibited by law is legal?
As long as the blind guy doesn't hurt anyone, there should be no prohibition against doing stupid stuff like this. And if he does hurt someone? Well, negligently shooting someone is already illegal, unless you are Dick Cheney.
You don't understand human history... Any meat available in the supermarket has been killed. I'm sorry if no one has told you this. Killing the meat yourself gives you a greater sense of the implications of it. You are such a Nancy, liberal man.
A real civilized human does not need to publish child-rape guides on the internet, but here we have the ACLU and other liberals standing up for that right... You won't condemn it. Liberals have a soft spot for that kind of crap.
Instead, you'd rather attack the blind man who just wants to experience some of the things in life that millions of Men have done throughout human history. Everyone doesn't want to be like you, liberal. Your nanny mentality is a mental disorder. Focus your hate on the criminal, not the citizen, and your brain may begin to heal.... I will pray for you.
Some of the tests could include:
- Weapon maintenance
- Rights and Wrong
- Aiming test: put them in a room (on their own) and tell them to hit a big target (I like the idea of a moving target) at 50 paces 3 times. This would test gun handling abilities and aiming.
I guess the only thing left to work out is if a blind person manages to hit the target.I'm thinking it would be a bit of fun to just let them loose...
As said by a coward..
Speaking of asinine, Hi, Pot. Ever RTFA? Try it, you might become more educated than us kettles in Texas.
Just for fun, let's look at a couple of possible results of this proposal, not that you would learn anything or see the point.
In one case, the blind has an offset sight for someone else to sight the weapon. So, there would be TWO people trying to sneak through the environment to find game, making it more difficult to actually find the game. Once found, the sighted person would ensure the target is game and not another hunter.
In another case, laser sighting is allowed. This enables those who can barely see, (but are still legally blind,) to sight and shoot. The legally blind person would still need to be able to see good enough out of at least a portion of his field of vision to discern that the laser is hitting the target.
To put legally blind in perspective, I had a roomate who was legally blind. Most of his retina was detached in one eye, and he couldn't really focus the other. Consequently, he had a spot of clear vision, and a large area of really blurry vision. He could play video games if he looked at the TV just right from a close distance. Reading was a chore. Driving wasn't going to happen in a safe manner. On one night out, he made a pass at a cross dresser, not noticing the five-o'clock shadow. Would I trust him to hunt alone? No. Would I trust him to hunt with someone else sighting? Yes. Do I think he would get any game? Not really. Would he enjoy it? Probably. Would he take an unsafe shot? No, he knew his limitations, and I would expect the blind hunters in this case to know their limitations as well.
Could they?
Ideas stand and fall on their own merits.
You could not address the substance of the post, so you retreated to the semantics of a user account.
How vapid.
So much courage this AC eh? A REAL MAN WOULD NOT BE AN AC WHEN MAKING THESE STATEMENTS. Of course meat on sale has been killed, by a method that works fairly painlessly 100% of the time, unlike hunting, where many wounded animals escape. Just so you get it I will put it simply, in short words. When meat is readily and cheaply available a civilised(Look it up) man does not hunt. Whilst your looking that up, look up free speech as well obviously you dont understand that either. Who was who said "i dont agree with what he said but I will fight for his right to say it"? Like all modern "Hunters" and gun supporters You are just a coward, plain and simple, and everyone here can see it by the lack of a name. Please dont waste your time praying to a non existant entity for me, your delusions are your problem, only weak minded relevance deprived fools believe in gods. See a shrink, you so obviously need one. You crap on a lot and tell your little lies and smear thinking people but you dont post any evidence of what you say. Your so stupid you probably would need a guide to commit rape, or even use the toilet! Keep going though, I havent had such a good laugh for weeks. Though it is abit cruel to laugh at the retarded!
What a fantastic way to completely eliminate a conservative state!
and hit a Texan politician instead, whose fault will it be?
There was no substance to reply to, just dribbling, irrelevant crap. I'm surprised though that you can spell vapid. Well done! Still an AC though arent you. Spinless weasel.
Have gnu, will travel.
This makes me wonder, if a blind guy and his guide is out in the woods, they aim the gun at a deer and somehow ends up hitting and killing another hunter. Who is responsible? The guide or the shooter? This could be a hell of a way to kill someone and lay the blame on the blind guy pulling the trigger.
This post may or may not contain cancer causing materials.
" ... What they're making fun of is Texas lawmakers who are so extreme on "gun rights" ... " ... real funny.
The party line for open minded leftists is that "Texas" and "Guns" = "bad".
I get it, brother/sister.
i lities_act )
... the world will be so much ""better"" when we finally
... millions (more) will be dead.
... I dare you (grin) www.MichaelSavage.com
Funny ? ? ? Yeah
No, this is just further advancement into an Insane Socialist State.
Reference: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_disab
All very Well Meaning, of course.
Let's just *feel good* about things.
We wouldn't want to ""discriminate""", now would we ??
Heck, the People's Revolution in the USA might even have
Janitors doing Surgery, like Mao did in China, before we're done here.
Viva La Revelocion
replace *One* Skin Color with the *Correct* Skin Color. (frown)
Unfortunately
Try it sometime
So is forcing the blind to adhere to some higher code of ethics than sighted people. Look, a blind person doesn't have to adhere to your idea of how the blind SHOULD be any more than a sighted person has to give a rats ass about what you think of hunting. You see, patronization and nanny-state thinking is more wrong to me than shooting a deer. A deer is a deer. There are millions, and we've displaced their natural predators. I don't hunt but jeez, your attitude on this is ridiculously patronizing. Who says blind people would not want to experience the "joy of killing an animal" if sighted people sometimes do just that? Or do the blind live in some fantastic world where they go where you tell them to and do what you say is morally ok? If so, can we have your email so we can "check" before we run all willy nilly without benefit of your guidance?
Here's some info on Wisconsin's hunting law for the blind. Blind Hunting in Wisconsin
.... exactly how hunting is defined? As an ex photo-hunter I would have said that the pursuit and outwitting your prey was at least critical to the activity. The shooting, picture/ bullet/ arrow etc etc. surely is the last step in the process. So then I wonder who is doing the hunting? It seems to me that a blind person cannot do alone many of the things that epitomise hunting in its many forms. Perhaps the companion is doing the hunting and the shooter is just that, a shooter.
Forget Dick.
Feel sorry for Dan Quayle. Hunting season is going to be murder.
He has passed enough of those tests that he even has a conceal and carry permit. He is obviously a very good shot but I bet if he didnt have a booth or something to guide him and he spun around a few times and has a moving target, he would have a VERY difficult time shooting anywhere near the target as long as there werent other clues as to where to shoot. What if there was a target with an innocent target (bound and gagged of course) right in front of it. He would have no idea there was a hostage/bystander and would be capable of taking the shot. This guy seems smart enough that he wouldnt do something like that (and he was at one time actually trying to get ND to make their gun laws stricter).
I honestly wouldnt care if blind people drove at safe speeds on a closed course. They would probobly end up crashing but there would be nobody there to hit. If they want to shoot maybe thats the same way they can do it, on a closed course with no chance of shooting someone unintentionally. You could argue that hunting on private land is similar but you never know if someone is there and that would require a blind person operating a firearm out in the open which kind of scares me.
Bottles.
There was no substance to reply to, just dribbling, irrelevant crap. I'm surprised though that you can spell vapid. Well done! Still an AC though arent you. Spinless weasel.
Jesus man. I'm a different AC who doesn't agree with the AC of this thread and his rather silly views but even I'll say it: You're a fucking jackass.
The guy made his argument. If you want to debate him, pick his argument apart and don't just make some blatant label for it unless you're prepared to defend it. You're obviously more interested in throwing as many unwitty names and labels around you can muster up than you are actually are in debating him.
Grow up. This isn't a sycophantic blog. Try a little harder. "I don't like you and I'm gonna call you a poopoo head" might work there, but it wont past muster here.
Maybe I'm just being ornery, but WTF does this have to do with anything nerd, aside from its shock value?
"Blind hunters? That sounded unpossible until I read the summary, but even then I'm not sure if it's a good idea, and now I'm torn between expressing my views and making a Soviet Texas joke! Awwwww."
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
So is forcing the blind to adhere to some higher code of ethics than sighted people. Look, a blind person doesn't have to adhere to your idea of how the blind SHOULD be any more than a sighted person has to give a rats ass about what you think of hunting. You see, patronization and nanny-state thinking is more wrong to me than shooting a deer. A deer is a deer. There are millions, and we've displaced their natural predators. I don't hunt but jeez, your attitude on this is ridiculously patronizing. Who says blind people would not want to experience the "joy of killing an animal" if sighted people sometimes do just that? Or do the blind live in some fantastic world where they go where you tell them to and do what you say is morally ok? If so, can we have your email so we can "check" before we run all willy nilly without benefit of your guidance?
Not to put to fine a point on it, but you lack the intelligence sufficient to engage in meaningful discussion. Oh by the way, thanks for reminding me that "a deer is a deer" -I forgot. I also forgot how it follows form this that it is morally acceptable to kill it because you think doing so will give you pleasure. Since you are clearly mentally deficient, let me make it very clear that my post was not intended to say that only blind people should be barred from killing animals, just that it should be unacceptable to kill animals simply to derive some kind of sick pleasure from the fact that you are the one killing it. Did you know there are such things as animal cruelty laws? Animals, as conscious beings, are deserving of protection. When someone declares that they want to fire projectiles through the body of an animal for fun, you would think they should have to justify that -and they do. They provide a reason for why they should be allowed to painfully kill animals for their own perverted self interest. Whether or not it is a good reason (it's not a good reason for the record), is this: it's a sport, and hence it is okay. Now, tell me, how exactly does it qualify as a sport when someone else is aiming the gun for you? It is clearly, at least in the case of these people, just a matter of wanting to kill things. Hence, they should not be allowed to, because that is not an acceptable reason (by almost any decent persons standards). I am not suggesting that this is the case with all hunters, in fact it is probably not the case with many of them. However, in the case of those who are having someone else aim for them but want to still have the "joy of pulling the trigger", they are clearly lying if they say they are in it for the "sport".
PS do you mind if I hunt you down and kill you in the forest for sport? Hunting a human might actually be a challenge. I'll even let you have a stick.
from what i have been hearing on the net and media. apparently its a place like a circus.
Read radical news here
There's a difference between being blind and being completely unable to see. Most slashtards, I'll bet, are functionally blind without their glasses. My brother in law is legally blind without the combo of contacts and glasses. His driving scares me, but with some help with optics, he hunts just fine. Obviously, not shooting pheasents, but sitting in a deer stand with binoculars and a rifle isn't comsic.
Oh, there is legally bling and blind. I see.
:)
So it is like the fact that in certain parts of the world being fat equals disabled, and eating a lot of burgers makes you LEGALLY allowed to sit in the line in a wheelchair and get in front of me at the airport?
Let me know, because I know good doctors and maybe I am legally blind after 10 hours of sitting in front of the monitor, and could still drive, and fly an airplane, but would get in front of others at the airport with it.
OK, not flaming, just joking, so don't bite
BANG!!!
Hey Jim Bob!! Did I get 'em?
Jim Bob......?
Here's my question: is there actually a public demand for this? Are there really blind people out there who want to be led to the wild, have a gun held for them, and pull the trigger so they can kill still something, like normal people?
Property is theft.
"A blind person can shoot a rifle by mounting an offset pistol scope on the side of the rifle instead of on top. This allows their companion behind them to peer over their shoulder and help them sight it, but the blind person can pull the trigger."
Oh, like that brake peddle they used to put in the drivers education cars when I was in highschool? If we can turn teenagers loose in automobiles, why not a blind person with a gun?
Mod this guy down. He is 100% flamebait. Thank you for your time.
I honestly wouldnt care if blind people drove at safe speeds on a closed course.
That's nice, but you really don't have a say in the matter. As for your example, I support the rights of anyone who's competent to carry a weapon to own and carry it. This includes the blind guy you mentioned.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
So you *say* you are a different AC.Perhaps if you didnt post as AC I would know the difference, for somewhere that's "not a sycophantic blog" you certainly make it seem so! If you are such an expert on the mores of this site perhaps you would post logged on....I thought not. The guy made his argument, bullshit. Did you read the post I was replying to? It seems not, there was no argument to debate, just a rant insulting everyone here, with no facts referenced at all to repudiate. Your statement makes it clear YOU are the fuckwit, try to RTFP before crapping on! And BTW there are a lot more witty names and labels I did not use, you just don't understand subtle humour, what a surprise! Frankly if you post as AC you get what you deserve. I am not afraid of bad "karma" in fact I dont give a flying fuck about it(never have). Geez I'd hate to upset AC's(:!
Think of the money that can be made opening schools to teach seeing-eye dogs to retrieve ducks, friends, friends of Vice Presidents...
Apparently there's actually a whole system in place to allow deaf people to watch TV by putting captions on the screen displaying words for what people are saying! Even more shockingly, blind people would like to be able to go out of their house unassisted. They actual capture and enslave poor dogs into walking them around so they don't get hit by traffic! When will disabled people learn that the they should stay quietly indoors and that the world wasn't meant for them?!?!
Hi,
since the vice president is allowed to do so, why shouldn't average blind people be allowed to shoot on their fellow citizens ... aehmmm... i mean on fair game.
Regards, Martin
P.S.
An english man is on the hunt. He sees some movement, pulls up his rifle and shoots.
Suddenly someone cries "Hey, you nearly shot my wife."
He shouts back "Sorry, have a shot at mine over there."
I suspect Col. Frank Slade could really get behind this.
"Unless you can see the target, the range, and downrange yourself, you cannot be sure of your target. The way I was taught, that means you don't take the shot. Having someone else tell you "range is clear, fire away" is NOT a substitute."
.50 cal shooter having no eyes, and his "sighter" was incapable of firing or handling the gun mount... In that case, "fire way" is a valid exception I can speculate on...
Except, of course, in combat. I seem to recall the stories of the
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Good idea letting the blind hunt. They should do it everywhere then we can help weed out all the dumbasses. Why do we have to let the blind hunt? We don't let them drive a car. Why can we pass laws that make it OK for blind people to hunt but we can't pass laws that make it ok for gay couples to marry? What is wrong with this country?
Well Why Not...
;) Give me the Gun and ill fix our problem, and someone can fix yours..
Afterall you elected Bush to be the President with his case containing the nuclear codes.. then again we're probably safe, he has to learn how to open the case first.
Then again who are we to Judge, we (I take no responsibility for - I put a big F U All on the compulsory ballot paper, here you get fined quite a bit for not voting, or at least look like voting) voted that snivelling little big business lackie Howard in who has just revoked virtually all protection for Australian workers against explotiation and as such weve lost many benefits such as overtime, weekends and irregular shifts and banning abilty for unions and worker advocated from ensuring individual employment contracts are fair.
Lets see this go either into Funny.
Darren
>> We don't allow blind people to drive cars, either
Doc Watson's driving one, on the cover of "Docabilly".
Of course, there was a sighted person crouched down on the passenger side of the car, AND they cleared the whole street where he did the driving...
As any drive-thru ATM comes with Braille dots I'm sure someone is planning to make it possible for the blind to drive through. I mean, just on the basis of the evidence, of course :-).
Insert
Can we then please release the lawyers into the same region that these blind people are hunting? Please? Pwetty please with a bullet on top?
Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
Mule deer? Ah, try white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
Read the article, hunting is stalking an animal, not pulling a trigger when someone else says go. Texas just want to let the blind be able to kill.
I simply killing something is what matters, why not just give them a job at a slaughterhouse?
It also sounds completely insane to let someone aim for a blind person! "Hey, I told him NOT to pull the trigger as I aimed his rifle at that guy I hate!"
I don't 'need' to hunt, but I do. Hunting is a great tradition. It promotes comradery, morals, wellness and pride. While of course I don't need that 50 lbs of venison in my freezer, but it's a nice bonus that goes with all of the other things that make hunting great. I think it's sad that there is such a decline in hunting in the USA over the past several decades. I believe people are getting lazier as technology advances. I'm as geeky as the next guy, but I still drag my ass in the woods week after week in pursuit of deer, birds, whatever I may be after that day.
nothing
Grow the f*ck up.
A$$hole.
What?
Only in Texas would someone further this sillyness. Assuming that the hunting party can do so safely, it is really necessary in the first place? "Cool, I shot a deer, can't see it, but I killed the thing".
I say, the blind hunter should outfit himself with a knife, hide in the brush, and using his elevated sense of smell and hearing, try and kill game as a predator would. That would impress me.
If a "blindy," (as you'd probably call him) wanted to go skydiving under the same circumstances (being paired with a sighted person) nobody would think that was silly. Did you know that some blind people actually want to go hiking? And when they do so, they need a sighted person to walk with them, sometimes even holding their hand so they don't walk off-piste or trip!? Obviously, if a blind person wants to participate in anything that could be dangerous without a sighted partner, they should just give up and find something else safe to do... like begging on a street corner or scrubbing toilets.
Not as comforting to you, maybe. To me, however, it would be more comforting if I didn't have to live next to an idiot who just shoots people without due justice.
No, I mean Mule deer
Maybe I confused you when I said 'Hill Country'. You were probably thinking around the Austin area but I'm talking about the Western Edwards Plateau on the Eastern edge of the Trans-Pecos.
But Dick Cheney shot a lawyer. Isn't that a good thing?
If they are aiming ahead of a running, sightless deer, is that the blind leading the blind?
Can blind people hunt at night?
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
I wonder how many guide services will take blind people hunting and say "Wow, he was huge. Too bad you missed. You should have seen him!"
to read the wikipedia entry on "kosher".
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
... and when they proove plants can feel pain, what will you eat then, vegan-boy?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
From your Link: