![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 24 of 24. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 14, 2006, at 13:39:36
Harry Whittington was reported to have suffered a heart attack. It seems that among the injuries sustained from being shot by Mr. Cheney include some of the pellets being lodged in his heart.
Well, no matter how you put it. "it was only bird shot", "He didn't announce himself", "It wasn't a rifle", Dick Cheney did shoot a man, and as he has already suffered a heart attack (classified as minor), this man is not out of the woods.
Personally, I don't think the shooting was inteneional, but it was certainly negligent. The lessons I learned in the military, and in a hunters safety course were always to properly identify your target, and to know what's behind your target. (I personally don't hunt, but the family I married into did, so I got a hunting license for one year. Had this beautiful doe come up to me while hunting, and my father-in-law was upset b/c I didn't shoot it. Oh well.. :-) Besiedes, it looked better in the woods than in his freezer.)
Point is, I'm willing to say that an accident's an accident. However, the minimizing of it keeps getting more and more ridiculous as more and more facts come out. In the end, it's not the victim's responsibility to not get shot, it's the shooter's responsibility to not shoot a person, or a dog, or a cow, or a horse, or anything other than the intended target.
Realizing how serious the injuries are, this doesn't seem anymore like the "little mistake" sort of accident that I was reading about yesterday.
Oh well.
--Dee
Posted by zeugma on February 14, 2006, at 15:23:12
In reply to So it's not minor injuries..., posted by deirdrehbrt on February 14, 2006, at 13:39:36
The lessons I learned in the military, and in a hunters safety course were always to properly identify your target, and to know what's behind your target.>>
ah, but Dick Cheney never served in the military, and never took a hunter's safety course, either:
<<
HELENA - Vice President Dick Cheney, who shot his companion in a Texas hunting accident over the weekend, has not taken state-offered hunter's safety education courses in either his home state of Wyoming or Texas, records show. >>[from the Helena Independent Record]
Personally, I would rather go hunting with John Kerry than Dick Cheney, but that's just me. Kerry might not know a duck from a quail, but his military experience assures me he knows how to identify a human.
-z
Posted by Racer on February 14, 2006, at 17:58:40
In reply to So it's not minor injuries..., posted by deirdrehbrt on February 14, 2006, at 13:39:36
You know, it brings to mind two petroleum refineries around here, where I live. One is known for having terrible accidents, usually requiring public "shelter in place" alarms, and often involving fatalities. And it seems as though every single time this happens, the company spokesman gets up and starts talking about how it wasn't their fault, their safety is great, etc.
And the other is a Chevron refinery. And they had an accident there a few years ago, after which the spokesman came out and started talking. He said that it was terrible, they were all thankful that no one was killed, that the injuries were fairly minor, that they would be investigating it to find out how to make the plant safer, etc. That's company policy: admit it happened! Admit something went wrong, and that it was ultimately the company's fault -- and then say how you're going to fix it. That's called taking responsibility.
So, in this case, I'd have a heck of a lot more respect for Cheney if someone had come out and said, "The VP is devastated, he takes full responsibility for having been the cause of the accident, he is profoundly sorry that his companion was injured, etc." This thing where little dribs and drabs come out? Each one a bit worse than the last? This is a prime example of why people don't trust this administration.
Oh, yeah -- and I am absolutely disgusted by it all.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 15, 2006, at 14:57:52
In reply to So it's not minor injuries..., posted by deirdrehbrt on February 14, 2006, at 13:39:36
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. {NRA}
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 15, 2006, at 21:14:19
In reply to Re: Remember, posted by AuntieMel on February 15, 2006, at 14:57:52
AuntieMel,
That's actually something that I do agree with. I am though an advocate of *responsible* gun ownership and use. If you've got kids, or the possibility of kids in your house, lock 'em up. Also recognize that if for some reason they aren't locked up, you have a much greater potential of the weapon being stolen and used in a felony. If you're going to use one, and they aren't there for just a collection, learn how to properly use it. If you go hunting only once a year, go to a range and practice before you go out hunting. If you carry for protection, take regular courses, or practice, just as police do.
We have the right to carry, but we should do so responsibly. I'm not a huge fan of registering every weapon. That makes it easier to someday pass a law outlawing guns and having them seized. Part of the reason for having the right to bear arms was to prevent a tyranical government, and the first step in gaining total control over people is to take away their weapons. (OK, I sound a little NRA here, but I don't like taking away ANY rights from the people).
Still, I think that hunting licenses, concealed weapon permits, etc. should all require proof of some sort of training. I also believe that training should be periodically repeated. That's not interfering with any rights, it's just keeping people safe.Blessings,
--Dee
Posted by Racer on February 15, 2006, at 22:00:17
In reply to Re: Remember, posted by AuntieMel on February 15, 2006, at 14:57:52
> Guns don't kill people, people kill people. {NRA}
Seems to me, guns don't kill people -- BULLETS kill people...(OK, while it's true that I have thought things like that for years, I also saw Chris Rock doing a riff on that, which I thought was hysterically funny. As he's talking about how things would change if bullets cost $500 each. Yep. That would change things. Fewer drive bys...)
Posted by Sobriquet Style on February 16, 2006, at 11:01:52
In reply to Re: Remember, posted by AuntieMel on February 15, 2006, at 14:57:52
>Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Thats kinda like saying:
Planes don't fly in the sky, people fly in the sky....And occasionally pigs.
;-)
~
Posted by AuntieMel on February 16, 2006, at 12:50:55
In reply to Re: Remember » AuntieMel, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 15, 2006, at 21:14:19
My father had an idea, probably not original because it made sense.
Instead of registering the weapon, we should license the user, like a driver's license, qualifying tests (written plus practical) and all. The license would be required to buy any type of weapon.
This would give the gun show people no excuse to check out the buyers.
But I think the thing that ticks me off about this whole deal is that if *I* were the one behind that shotgun I would certainly face some kind of fine for having no hunting license - and probably some type of negligence charge for actually hitting someone.
Posted by 10derHeart on February 16, 2006, at 14:10:36
In reply to Re: Remember, posted by Sobriquet Style on February 16, 2006, at 11:01:52
Not sure how you meant that but...
Are planes flying these days without people in control of them? Eeek! ;-)
Hmmm, maybe I missed something, but I don't think the two sayings are alike.
If the logic is that people can't fly in the sky without planes, just as people can't kill people without guns....
If only. People seem to find plenty of ways to regularly kill each other with *and* without guns.
I dunno. It all kinda s*cks anyway. The killing part. :-(
Posted by Sobriquet Style on February 16, 2006, at 17:06:04
In reply to Re: Remember » Sobriquet Style, posted by 10derHeart on February 16, 2006, at 14:10:36
I see the concept of the "Guns don't kill people" to be false. People kill people, thats true of course.
But people invented a gun hundreds of years ago as weapons, mainly to kill in wars etc.
I mean if guns don't people, how did all the deaths come about in Iraq and all the wars before that. There was bombs and knifes etc. But why use Guns?
Could you say a victim was "killed with a gun" and/or "killed by a gun." And then say "Guns don't kill people"...
Doesn't make sense to me :-/
:-)
~
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 16, 2006, at 22:55:27
In reply to Re: Remember, posted by Sobriquet Style on February 16, 2006, at 17:06:04
Candlesticks don't kill people, the person striking the other person in the head with one does.
Knives don't kill people, the person doing the stabbing does.
The responsibility must lie with the person performing the act. If we live in a world in which we are afraid of, and outlaw anything that can be used to harm another, we are admitting defeat at the hand of objects. Lots of things can be dangerous, but used properly can bring about much good.
I wouldn't want to live in a land in which the only ones permitted to carry weapons were the millitary and government officials. Our constitiution was written by wise men, and we shouldn't just give up any of our rights because some people abuse them.
I like AuntieMel's idea, but the NRA would never go for it.
Certainly, everyone who posesses a gun should be able to show some sort of adequate training on how to use them. Whether or not they happen to be the Vice President of the United States.
Something just struck me... Vice President... does that mean he's the President of Vice for our country?
Blessings,
--Dee
Posted by AuntieMel on February 17, 2006, at 12:57:32
In reply to Re: Remember, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 16, 2006, at 22:55:27
Did you know it is a *requirement* in Switzerland to have at least one gun per househole?
Violent crime is low, but I haven't heard any stats on accidental shootings.
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 17, 2006, at 13:44:24
In reply to Re: Did you know? » deirdrehbrt, posted by AuntieMel on February 17, 2006, at 12:57:32
Thats not quite correct (re Switzerland)
Each adult man, of sound mind and body as they say, has to do national service. After national service they then are required to keep a gun, safelt locked away, in order to be called up to form a militia if the country were invaded.
Their gun crime rates are incredibly low.
Some of the reasons I believe this to be, compared to the US, is that a) all of the men are trained in how to use the gun correctly b) the gun stays locked upsafely and not carried around at all c)their idea of a militia is the correct usage of the term.
I do think the rest of the world, especially countries where guns are "legal" have an awful lot to learn from this system.
The problem isn't with the guns or the people. Its with the gun laws and attitudes.
Nikki
Posted by James K on February 17, 2006, at 14:22:13
In reply to Re: Did you know? » AuntieMel, posted by NikkiT2 on February 17, 2006, at 13:44:24
One impossibility of the concept of real gun control in this country, is that there are already way more guns than people here. We have functional rifles from the Civil War, and cheap plastic handguns made yesterday.
Even if a local jurisdiction passes their own control situations, I can just buy bulk firearms in the parking lot of a gun show, and drive them into their state.
I know we are really talking about hunting accidents here, but we did veer off a little.
I believe the answer is true training requirements with occasional updates for hunters. I like the license for buyers, not the guns themselves idea, but doubt it would pass current constitutional muster. I'm such a conflicted libertarian, that I think anyone should have a gun, or heroin, or whatever they want. but also am tired of the toll these kinds of things take on us.
My dad or someone like him could whip up a functional firearm in his work shed in no time, expense or trouble.
Rambling again, sorry
James K
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2006, at 14:28:38
In reply to Re: Gun Control, posted by James K on February 17, 2006, at 14:22:13
Just to show my ignorance on this topic, why would it be a problem to license the gun-owner and not the gun? Or to require firearms safety training to issue the license?
We require people to have drivers licenses as well as license plates, and that doesn't restrict their ability to own a vehicle.
Would requiring a license really violate the right to bear arms?
Clearly, I'm no constitutional expert. :)
Posted by James K on February 17, 2006, at 14:41:59
In reply to Re: Gun Control » James K, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2006, at 14:28:38
Current supreme court and superior court decisions have tended to favor a form of partial literalism to the question of "bearing arms" and "militas" that they don't always favor on other constitutional issues. So I was speaking I think more of the constitution as a living body, changing as the interpreters change. And I don't think our current crop of interpreters would be willing to go that direction.
We have allowed individual states to make their own laws, but once those laws go "too far" whatever that standard may be at any given time. We use the interstate commerce law or equal protection to bring things back in line.
I love the constitution and constitutional law, but as I get further away from my years at the law firm, my access to reading material has faded and my understanding grows further and further from expert.
James k
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2006, at 14:55:14
In reply to Re: Gun Control » Dinah, posted by James K on February 17, 2006, at 14:41:59
I'm impressed. Not only with your familiarity with Constitutional law, but with the fact that you love it. :)
Posted by AuntieMel on February 17, 2006, at 16:26:01
In reply to Re: Did you know? » AuntieMel, posted by NikkiT2 on February 17, 2006, at 13:44:24
Right you are. I got lazy and gave the short version. Thanks for filling it in.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 17, 2006, at 16:28:55
In reply to Re: Gun Control » Dinah, posted by James K on February 17, 2006, at 14:41:59
But you were talking about law offices.....
A boss of mine several years ago told me it was state law that office buildings had to have sofas in the ladies rooms.
Do you have a clue where to go to research that?
Posted by James K on February 17, 2006, at 16:35:26
In reply to Re: Totally off topic. » James K, posted by AuntieMel on February 17, 2006, at 16:28:55
> But you were talking about law offices.....
>
> A boss of mine several years ago told me it was state law that office buildings had to have sofas in the ladies rooms.
>
> Do you have a clue where to go to research that?=== I swear that I will find you the answer to that questions. I always thought that it was for fainting. Or reverse sexism, or ya'll just liked it in there.
James K
Posted by Sobriquet Style on February 17, 2006, at 19:54:35
In reply to Re: Did you know? » deirdrehbrt, posted by AuntieMel on February 17, 2006, at 12:57:32
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm
http://www.1291swizz.com/beat-raclette-1.jpg
~
Posted by James K on February 18, 2006, at 2:47:00
In reply to Re: Totally off topic. » AuntieMel, posted by James K on February 17, 2006, at 16:35:26
I went all over the net, before my laptop overheated, this my first chance back. They are called fainting couches, and are talked about most often in antique areas, and political areas --- like "oh my, dick cheney said, ( ) I better find the fainting couch.
I couldn't find anything in the texas statutes, but haven't gone Houston specific yet. there is a female perfessor at university of chicago law, damn, name gone, doing a survey, gender based, so it is political, about when mixed company go out, compare notes and fainting couch is one of the criterea, along with grafitti, and number of usables.
I asked someone, and got no good answer. I found a question site, where someone asked specifically about laws, and he knew of none, but assumed that "the weaker sex" needed a place to lay when the got the "vapors" (i'm cracking myself up)
I found many funny bathroom sites. The innerweb is a strange place. How can you have a life and have a site devoted to toilets too?
I will find the answer, although I fear this may be a throwback to corsets and smelling salts and no specific answer will ever materialize.
James K
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 18, 2006, at 5:33:12
In reply to Re: Totally off topic. » James K, posted by James K on February 18, 2006, at 2:47:00
Sorry to go off topic a second.. but I had terible problems with my laptop over heating so I bought a laptop cooler.. This is the one I bought
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000BVYTV/drbobsvirte00-20
as its the only one I could get hold of in the UK, but Amazon.com has a much greater selection. One of the best investments I have ever made.. Laptop stays positively chilly now, and hasn't over heated once since (and it was over heating every hour or so before!)
Nikki
Posted by Racer on February 18, 2006, at 19:42:54
In reply to Re: Did you know? » AuntieMel, posted by NikkiT2 on February 17, 2006, at 13:44:24
>
>
> Some of the reasons I believe this to be, compared to the US, is that a) all of the men are trained in how to use the gun correctly b) the gun stays locked upsafely and not carried around at all c)their idea of a militia is the correct usage of the term.
>
> I do think the rest of the world, especially countries where guns are "legal" have an awful lot to learn from this system.
>
> The problem isn't with the guns or the people. Its with the gun laws and attitudes.
>
> NikkiNikki, you've said it all and so well that I won't try to say anything beyond, "YES!"
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.