Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

The Most Dangerous Game
November 21, 2004 9:57 PM   Subscribe

"Around this country, it has always been territorial." A bizarre deer-stand dispute among hunters in Wisconsin turns violent, leaving five dead and three seriously injured.
posted by soyjoy (103 comments total)

 
The only thing that could make this funnier is if it were a deer that opened fire.
posted by cmonkey at 10:12 PM on November 21, 2004


"I'm shocked. Stuff like that doesn't happen in this area," said Birchwood hunter Dusty Bosteder.
posted by rdub at 10:13 PM on November 21, 2004


cmonkey: bizarre yes, funny no.
posted by rdub at 10:15 PM on November 21, 2004


cmonkey: What exactly about this is funny at all?

Are we laughing at the 'hicks' who deer hunt? If so, keep in mind the suspect is from Saint Paul.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:16 PM on November 21, 2004


Frankly, I'm surprised this sort of thing doesn't happen more often. A competitive bunch of people, out in the woods, armed to the teeth, almost always drinking.
posted by nightchrome at 10:21 PM on November 21, 2004


This is actually quite scary, my family usually has to ask a few hunters a season to leave our property. Hunters are the type of people I trust(wavering) with deadly weapons.
posted by Shuffleburry at 10:23 PM on November 21, 2004


Not only is the suspect from St. Paul, but he's also of Hmong descent, judging from his name (St. Paul has the largest Hmong community in the U.S.). Hardly your typical "hunting hick" demographics.
posted by neckro23 at 10:36 PM on November 21, 2004


More detailed article from the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

I should also point out that the SKS, which he was apparently using, is hardly an assault rifle, as both of the articles claim. It's a WW2-era rifle design that's strictly semiautomatic, with a 10-round clip.
posted by neckro23 at 10:42 PM on November 21, 2004


cmonkey: What exactly about this is funny at all?

People who shoot animals for fun killing each other makes me giggle with glee. In fact, I really wish it would happen more often.

It has nothing to do with their racial or socioeconomic status.
posted by cmonkey at 10:45 PM on November 21, 2004


Once again proving, Don't Fuck with Wisconsin. TM

I'm not sure how, but just have to put that out there

Remember, we're the same place where Bobby Knight shot someone while hunting
posted by drezdn at 10:47 PM on November 21, 2004


is hardly an assault rifle

Why would a non-assault rifle need a bayonet mount? Are there peace-time uses for a mounted bayonet?
posted by bashos_frog at 11:14 PM on November 21, 2004


Why would a non-assault rifle need a bayonet mount? Are there peace-time uses for a mounted bayonet?

Strictly speaking, there's no such thing as an "assault rifle." Modern combat rifles typically have several attributes that differentiate them from hunting or sporting arms, and many people have taken to calling any rifle with any of these attributes an "assault weapon." The SKS in question is not a modern combat rifle, having been designed right after the Second World War. It has a bayonet lug because it is a military rifle. It's a little anemic for deer hunting, though. In any case, if you buy an SKS nowadays it usually comes without the bayonet lug anyway.

Did anyone else think of this?
posted by me & my monkey at 11:42 PM on November 21, 2004


"Around this country it has always been territorial."

Territorial.. as in to the death??

I'm moving to Chile where there are plenty of forsaken security officers to keep me safe!
posted by superposition at 11:55 PM on November 21, 2004


The SKS is a semiautomatic rifle. It is not an assualt rifle.

Saying something is an assault rifle when it's not is a way of inducing fear. For government to be successful in banning weapons of any kind, fear is an important tool. Federal and state governments have been very successful lately in banning weapons by falsely labeling them "assault weapons." The media have been very helpful, even excited sometimes, when it comes to spreading these fear-inducing labels. The media should be questioning government.

Oh, it's just a harmless little bunny, isn't it?
posted by three blind mice at 12:28 AM on November 22, 2004


You know cmonkey, I find your glee at the shooting deaths of five people extremely disturbing. And I take it personally. You see I hunted as a kid, with my dad and granddad. And I don't take kindly to the idea that you would giggle at they're deaths or mine. I don't hunt anymore. Because I don't enjoy it anymore. But I did then. And when I did hunt, we weren't drunk red necks shooting out of a stand at corned deer. See, a lot of hunters have a lot of respect for game. That's why they don't shoot pregnant does, they don't shoot more than they're legal limit, and they eat what they kill and dress and process it themselves. I mean do you also laugh at the deaths of non vegitarians, or are they different because the meat they eat comes from an animal they never saw that was slaughtered en mass by some faceless slaughterhouse employee? I mean I've been a vegetarian, have lots of friends who are vegetarian, dated vegetarians. No problem. And I can understand that some people think hunting is just killing for fun. And it probably is for some people. But then again others view it with a lot more respect. Not every hunter is a NRA card carrying nut case. Some people view it as a way of having a more personal contact with the meat they're eating than what they get from picking up a pound of ground chuck at the store. Some people even, believe it or not, supplement their family's income with the food they bring home from hunting. And since I've hunted, since I've done those things, for better or worse, I know what it means to end a life, and whether it's a deer, or turkey, or dove or a human being, whether it's a necessary death or not, it's never something to giggle about. Have some respect for the dead.
posted by grandcrewno2 at 12:31 AM on November 22, 2004


Curiously, the "high-powered" SKS is a rifle that is not, in the state of Washington, powerful enough to legally hunt deer with. (Caveat: Last time I read the game rules was 4-5 years ago, they may have changed. I assume that the requirements for powerful rounds are a regulation intended to be humane.)

That said, what a crappy situation. I am surprised such things don't happen more often. I've heard that game warden is the most dangerous law enforcement job available. Frankly, that this sort of thing is so rare really speaks well of hunters in general.
posted by stet at 12:53 AM on November 22, 2004


it seems like everyone is fighting these days - hunters, professional athletes, presidents. has the world become more tense since the election or is it just me?

thanks for the heads-up on the definition of "assault rifle", guys - i didn't know that and i am always happy to learn of different ways the media tries to control my issue definition. cheers!
posted by pikachulolita at 1:00 AM on November 22, 2004


Just to cut through some of the gun rhetoric here, without using any particularly loaded terms (though I'm no expert): the SKS and a typical hunting rifle such as the Winchester differ primarily in that the SKS will probably come with a magazine, while the Winchester would not. It sounds from the article that Vang was sitting in a tree stand with a fully loaded magazine, which he then emptied. A hunter -- especially a deer hunter -- is unlikely to even need a second shot much of the time because the report of the rifle will spook the target and any other deer in the neighborhood.

The SKS isn't necessarily a more dangerous weapon, but in this instance it was more dangerous for the people arguing with the killer, notwithstanding the fact that they were likely completely surprised by the shooting. He was simply more prepared than they were for what turned into a confrontation.

It isn't actually that common for hunters to deliberately shoot one another. </dry> In fact, the greatest complaint hunters tend to have is for newbies who are out in the woods without any sense or care for others, which seems to describe Mr. Vang to a tee. They don't know where property lines are, they screw up quiet hunters' efforts by loudly tramping through and across deer trails and feeding areas, and they shoot without checking whether they might come uncomfortably close to other hunters, or nearby non-hunters enjoying their property. The idea of half-assed mindless killers is really the least of their worries.
posted by dhartung at 1:00 AM on November 22, 2004


grandcrewno2, your response to cmonkey is much more gracious than the one I was composing.
posted by Tubes at 1:05 AM on November 22, 2004


three blind mice: Thanks for the links. I always thought the presence of a bayonet lug and/or grenade launcher mount was enough to qualify a weapon as an assault rifle under US law.
But given that fully automatic weapons have always been strictly controlled, what would the selector switch on a previously banned assault weapon do? Can civilians now buy an AR-10 w/ 3-round bursts, for example?
posted by bashos_frog at 1:07 AM on November 22, 2004


It'll be interesting to read about his background, stuff like this doesnt happen out of the blue.
posted by stbalbach at 1:07 AM on November 22, 2004


stet: As long as I’ve been hunting in Washington (19 years now) an SKS has been a perfectly valid hunting rifle. The only requirement for a rifle is that the bullet be a minimum of 24 caliber (6mm), the SKS uses a 30 caliber bullet. There used to also be restrictions bullet weight but those have been gone for quite a while. The 7.62x39 round that the SKS uses isn’t great for long range shots but it’s comparable to the Winchester 30-30 for hunting deer.

bashos_frog: Select fire weapons still count as machineguns and are restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. So you can own a semi-automatic AR-10, but to get one with select fire you’d have to jump through all the NFA hoops, if your state allows it.
posted by Tenuki at 2:01 AM on November 22, 2004


bashos_frog, having been endowed sufficiently by nature that i have no need for additional firepower, i don't own a gun and i am no expert on the subject.

i do, however, recognize that the adjective "assault" when used in front of the noun "rifle" is more pejorative than descriptive.

the weapons previously banned under the brady law were a mixture of semi-automatic weapons having large capacity magazines and other features such as a folding/telescoping stock, a protruding pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a threaded muzzle or flash suppressor, and a grenade launcher.

as far as i know, private american citizens have never been permitted to own fully automatic weapons of any sort - even if limited to three rounds. neither are private american citizens permitted to own rocket propelled grenades, motars, surface to air missiles, fighter aircraft, or tactical nuclear weapons.

a well regulated militia is apparently one thing and a well-armed militia is another thing altogether.
posted by three blind mice at 2:35 AM on November 22, 2004


bashos_frog: from here.

All firearms addressed in the ban are semi-automatic firearms, that is, firearms that fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled, without the user reloading by operating a bolt or lever. Neither the AWB nor its expiration affects the legal status of fully-automatic firearms, which can fire more than one round with a single trigger-pull; these have been illegal except by special permit since 1934.

That link then goes on to define what the Assault Weapons Ban DID cover, which were mostly cosmetic issues and medium/high-capacity magazines. As Tenuki indicates (and this is what wikipedia means by 'special permit') - in certain states civilians who obtain a class III dealer's license (which costs $1000/year) may purchase fully-automatic weapons manufactured prior to 1986. There's a $200 fee per item, and you more or less waive your fourth amendment rights against search completely.

As to the debate regarding what constitutes an assault rifle - what history tells us and what the government legislation tells are, as usual, at odds. I highly suggest you read up on the Wikipedia Sturmgewehr article, as it quite accurately captures the development of the assault rifle, and the strategic reasons for its creation.
posted by Ryvar at 2:57 AM on November 22, 2004


"as far as i know, private american citizens have never been permitted to own fully automatic weapons of any sort - even if limited to three rounds. "

Yes they can. Only eight states outright ban machineguns (DE, HI, IA, IL, KS, NY, RI and WA). The National Firearms Act of 1934 makes it illegal for civilians to own machine guns without permission from the Federal Government. The National Firearms Act of 1934 levies a $200 tax each time the ownership of the machine gun changes. In addition, each machine gun is registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in the National Firearms Registry.

To purchase an NFA weapon, you must submit two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety" and endure a background investigation. In addition, the application must be signed by a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence. Here is a faq about NFA weapons.

"neither are private american citizens permitted to own rocket propelled grenades"

You can get these too. There are around a dozen transferable RPG-7 launchers in the US. Of course each RPG counts as a destructive device and you would have to follow the same rules as buying a machinegun for each rocket you wanted. This site has three of them for sale, only $7995 each.

"motars"

Also legal, counts as a destructive device.

"surface to air missiles"

Large scale rocketry comes pretty close.

"fighter aircraft"

Totally legal if you can afford them. There are weapon restrictions but the aircraft themselves are legal.

Back on topic, it’ll be interesting to see what made this guy snap - alcohol, medication or lack thereof. I’ve had to kick people who were hunting without permission off my land before but no one has ever taken a shot at me. It’s actually kind of surprising that he made it down from the deer stand alive.
posted by Tenuki at 3:41 AM on November 22, 2004


It should be mentioned that Tenuki's information and my own - while seeming to contradict on certain specifics - are both correct. Both methods will allow you to purchase a NFA weapon manufactured prior to 1986.
posted by Ryvar at 3:47 AM on November 22, 2004


With a Class III dealer license you can also purchase NFA weapons manufactured after 1986, usually referred to as a ‘post dealer sample’, but you can’t just buy these for your collection. You need to be courting law enforcement/military customers with the weapon. Several dealers have gotten into trouble for treating their license as a ‘collectors license.’
posted by Tenuki at 3:57 AM on November 22, 2004


With a Class III dealer license you can also purchase NFA weapons manufactured after 1986

I was not aware of that, Tenuki - thanks!

Not that I own a gun, or ever plan to buy one.

There's still no way to legally hang a FN P90TR over your fireplace mantle, correct? I had heard that the BATF has a huge bug up their collective ass regarding 5.7x28mm ammo in general.
posted by Ryvar at 4:08 AM on November 22, 2004


Curiously, the "high-powered" SKS is a rifle that is not, in the state of Washington, powerful enough to legally hunt deer with.

The wound profile of an SKS suggests that it is sufficient to kill a deer with. Having myself fired an SKS at various inanimate objects, I can assure you that it has sufficient penetration with the proper bullet. Still, it doesn't strike me as very "sporting" to use an SKS for deer hunting.

In any event, this example of field use sadly proves that the SKS is more than sufficient to kill humans with.
posted by moonbiter at 4:10 AM on November 22, 2004


I hate to say it, folks, but in the context of this incident, the type of weapon involved is irreverent.

Regardless of wether everyone had compound bows, bb guns, or bolos and nets, the shooter in this case was poaching. He had no regard for regulations or boundaries, he didn't exhibit any concern toward the other hunters, and didn't appear fazed or bothered about attacking them any more than stalking a woodland creature. After getting lost in the woods, the fellow asked for directions without apparently referring to the prior incident. That's more than a bit nonchalant, to say the least. Having a potentially lethal implement may not have played as much a role as his overall desire to do whatever he wanted, and not caring in the least about others.

I'm not saying this to defend use of certain weapons. I'm pointing out the fact that too many "sportsmen" - which would include fishermen, trappers, hikers, rock climbers, etc. - make the fatal mistake of using their activity as a type of down time for venting, and may often have their own viewpoint/agenda regarding private interest that would be better left at home.
posted by Smart Dalek at 4:38 AM on November 22, 2004


”There's still no way to legally hang a FN P90TR over your fireplace mantle, correct?”

Possibly soon. FN/Herstal is making a semi-auto version that will mainly be marketed to Law Enforcement in states where machineguns are not allowed, (again DE, HI, IA, IL, KS, NY, RI and WA). Odds are it will also show up in the civilian market - they said they would never sell the FN FiveSeven to civilians, uses the same round as the P90, but I now own one. Look for a civilian P90 next year after February’s SHOT show in Vegas.

Of course if you’re just looking for a mantle piece there’s always airsoft

"I had heard that the BATF has a huge bug up their collective ass regarding 5.7x28mm ammo in general."

The ammo was never illegal. It just wasn’t sold to anyone but Military/Law Enforcement. They are now selling the jacketed hollow point ammo to the civilian market for use in the FiveSeven pistol. Now if they started selling the full metal jacket ammo to the general public the BATF might step in.

/gunfondling
posted by Tenuki at 4:38 AM on November 22, 2004


"irrelevant", not "irreverent".
posted by Smart Dalek at 4:40 AM on November 22, 2004


Ack, forgot to check links.
airsoft
jacketed hollow point ammo

sorry.
posted by Tenuki at 4:42 AM on November 22, 2004


Welll... As a liberal, who is also a gun owner, I find the anti-gun arguments from my fellows both bizarre and counterproductive. Personally I favor licensing similar to the way we license drivers to be a good thing (if done right, *not* in the style of New York's Sullivan Act). But that's irrelevant.

I will add that I've never really seen how hunting a deer with a high powered rifle could be considered "sport". You sit in a blind, look through a telescopic scope and shoot a deer. Big deal, such a bold and brave hunter you are. Bow hunters are closer to sport, IMO. 'Course no one goes for the real challenge: deer hunting with a spear.

None of which has anything to do with the fact that a nutjob from St Paul shot several people because they told him that he was on private property.
posted by sotonohito at 4:53 AM on November 22, 2004


I’ve never understood the use of blinds and tree stands. The ‘fun’ in hunting for me is being outside, hiking, and tracking the quarry – not the shooting. I shoot the animal for the meat. Many ‘sport’ hunters annoy me, they’re the kind that ends up shooting one of my horses because, “well it was brown and had four legs.”
posted by Tenuki at 5:08 AM on November 22, 2004


Tenuki - blinds and stands/tree slings are anachronisms.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, hunters would sometimes camp out for days, or nearly a fortnight before returning home. For modern "weekenders", it provides too much of an edge, even for novices, just as GPS and sonar do for enthusiast-level fishing.
posted by Smart Dalek at 5:20 AM on November 22, 2004


Unfortunately this does not really surprise me. I have had friends threatened with guns by poachers when they confronted the trespasser, and I was once told by a game warden that more wardens are shot in the line of duty than cops, because any conflict involves the presence of guns from the beginning. I am pro hunting and pro gun, but there ought to be some way of keeping guns out of the hands of idiots and assholes
posted by TedW at 5:24 AM on November 22, 2004


I want to disavow the "giggle with glee" reaction while still admitting that I do share with cmonkey the interest at the bitter irony involved here. But as for this...

Frankly, that this sort of thing is so rare really speaks well of hunters in general.

What sort of thing - one guy killing five to eight people while hunting? Yeah, that's rare all right, but certainly hunters killing other hunters - and uninvolved non-hunters - could hardly be said to be rare. What's rare is an incident like this so extreme that people outside the county where it happened hear about it.
posted by soyjoy at 5:45 AM on November 22, 2004


I searched Google for "SKS rifle" and got this as result #1 "of about 73,700".

If this is an "assault rifle" so was my first .22: it was semi-automatic, it held 10 rounds in the magazine (which didn't stick out the bottom but was a hollow tube in the butt end), and while it didn't come with a bayonet mount one could have easily been added -- you could add a bayonet mount to a broomstick with a few screws.

Quick glossary:

semi-automatic: firing one bullet each time you pull the trigger

fully-automatic: you pull the trigger once and it keeps firing for as long as you hold the trigger down -- the "machine guns" in movies work like this

single-action: the firearm has to be cocked before each shot
posted by davy at 5:58 AM on November 22, 2004


I knew a guy once who gave up hunting after a run-in with another hunter. He was out in the woods on foot, wearing his blaze orange, when another hunter (also on foot) accidently took a shot in his direction.

He chased the guy over 100 yards though the woods and fired off a couple of rounds before he came to his senses and realized what he was doing. He'd been overwhelmed by the "fight or flight" instinct; he was just lucky he wasn't a very good shot and no one got hurt. And since then, he doesn't hunt, now that he knows "I shoot back."

Strange things happen when people get out in the woods with guns.
posted by junkbox at 6:02 AM on November 22, 2004


It’s interesting to see how different news agencies handle the information.

From the linked article:

“Semiautomatic rifles are legal and quite popular. Nearly all guns used in deer hunting are sporting arms. It's not common for hunters to use assault-style rifles because they're not often very accurate.”

From an MSNBC article about the shooting:

“Zeigle said the suspect was “chasing after them and killing them,” with a SKS 7.62 caliber semiautomatic, a common hunting weapon.”

Not once was it referred to as an assault rifle in the MSNBC story.
posted by Tenuki at 6:05 AM on November 22, 2004


grandcrewno2 says: ...See, a lot of hunters have a lot of respect for game. That's why they don't shoot pregnant does, they don't shoot more than they're legal limit, and they eat what they kill and dress and process it themselves.

Oh, please.

Hunters are generally (though, as this story shows, not always) middle-aged, half-drunk, white guys with absurd resources of firepower and tactical advantage compared to the creatures that falls within "they're legal limit". Who cares whether they eat and process what they kill? Once it's dead, the deer sure doesn't care.
posted by 327.ca at 6:06 AM on November 22, 2004


[I]t doesn't strike me as very "sporting" to use an SKS for deer hunting.
and
I've never really seen how hunting a deer with a high powered rifle could be considered "sport". You sit in a blind, look through a telescopic scope and shoot a deer. Big deal, such a bold and brave hunter you are.

Then by no means could what the pre-horse Plains tribes did be called "hunting": several dozen people would get together and stampede a herd of bison off a cliff.
posted by davy at 6:10 AM on November 22, 2004


tenuki, ryvar. i stand corrected! thanks for the information and the links. not that this will make me feel any more safe with i visit america, but it's nice to know the facts.

'Course no one goes for the real challenge: deer hunting with a spear.

sotonohito this probably wouldn't make much of a difference. according to the US department of justice 2 538 people were murdered in 2002 by guns "other than handguns" and 2 018 were killed by knives.

presumably not all of these were assault knives.
posted by three blind mice at 6:14 AM on November 22, 2004


Then by no means could what the pre-horse Plains tribes did be called "hunting."

you've got a point there davy.

but then again by no means could what hunters do today be called "survival."

or are there no supermarkets in wisconsin?
posted by three blind mice at 6:21 AM on November 22, 2004


... having been endowed sufficiently by nature that i have no need for additional firepower ...

Hey, what's your phone number big boy?
posted by me & my monkey at 6:24 AM on November 22, 2004


Count me in on everyone outraged at the stereotyping of the hunters. Why can't we go back to nice things like asking in broad unjustifiable tones why black NBA players are so violent?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:28 AM on November 22, 2004


I'm pointing out the fact that too many "sportsmen" - which would include fishermen, trappers, hikers, rock climbers, etc. - make the fatal mistake of using their activity as a type of down time for venting

'cept if i vent while fishing the most my neighboring anglers will suffer is an earful of profanity (which is incidentally illegal in michigan, if within earshot of a woman). people do need downtime, but anything involving guns is not the way to go about it. i agree with the statement in general, but take issue with comparing the dangers of a frustrated hiker with the man in the tree stand in the FPP.

personally i'd like to see more restrictions on firearms. we in the US all have the right to keep them and all (i have two shotguns at home myself) but i think we need to realize that some weapons should not be in the hands of private citizens - there's some amount of professional training that needs to take place prior to handing a gun to a soldier, training that includes both mental as well as physical tests to ensure that the person the firearm is issued to can actually handle it in an appropriate manner.

i think the NRA would be wise to admit that there is no way in hell the founding fathers could have anticipated multi-shot repeating weapons. they ought to distance themselves from the anti-government nuts we often imagine when we picture NRA members. i know it will never happen, but i think it would be good for everyone involved... we agree to some sort of sane limits on who can own what, like the aforementioned driving test. you want a gun? sure, everyone can have one. you'll need to pass this use and safety exam first to make sure you are prepared to use it safely and properly. can't be part of a "well-regulated militia " if we don't have any regulations, right?

oh, you want to buy X number of guns? sure, you can have that many. but there is a chance that you might be stockpiling weapons for some reason, so for the safety of your neighbors and local law enforcement agents here's a short psych evaluation to ensure you aren't going to snap and use them inappropriately.

but you want a fully automatic weapon? well, not everyone can have one of those, and people who do get one must have advanced training to make sure they don't hurt themselves or others by accident. you'll need to fill out an application explaining why it is critical for you to have one, submit to a battery of psych exams and sign up for a three-week intensive training course. your scores on both sets of exams as well as your reasons listed in the application will be used to determine what class of weapon you will be licensed to own.

see? sane, reasonable, and it will never happen. now if you'll excuse me, i need to call my brother back and see what time he wants to meet me at the firing range.
posted by caution live frogs at 6:32 AM on November 22, 2004


He chased the guy over 100 yards though the woods and fired off a couple of rounds before he came to his senses and realized what he was doing. He'd been overwhelmed by the "fight or flight" instinct; he was just lucky he wasn't a very good shot and no one got hurt. And since then, he doesn't hunt, now that he knows "I shoot back."

Holy cow. While that's a bit of a horrifying reaction - it takes a man to admit "hey, when it comes to X I just plain have bad instincts and need to let the welfare of others come before my own personal pleasure." Much respect to your friend their for having the balls to follow through on that totally unamerican sentiment ;)
posted by Ryvar at 6:35 AM on November 22, 2004


your friend there, grr.
posted by Ryvar at 6:36 AM on November 22, 2004


"surface to air missiles"

Large scale rocketry comes pretty close.


Actually, it is illegal to put any sort of guidance package on a model rocket, regardless of scale.
posted by TeamBilly at 6:42 AM on November 22, 2004


[B]y no means could what hunters do today be called "survival."

You think people are born knowing how to get their own meat? And do you think there will always be supermarkets?

Unsalted meat spoils without refrigeration, and the supply of canned chili will dwindle fast. But there are lots of bullets already, and those you just have to keep dry.

On the other hand, if a crisis in food distribution lasts long enough to use up most of the available bullets, you won't see us Americans reverting to bow-hunting: it's so much easier to eat other Americans. E.g., we cluster in herds like bison but we're weak and slow and have no horns.
posted by davy at 6:47 AM on November 22, 2004


its interesting to see the SKS yet again a point of contention. The reason some hunters use the SKS is because it is very durable, very cheap, with cheap ammo (albeit not so accurate).

I bought one (in NY) for $160, but they can be found for as little as $100 (compared to minimally $500 for a good hunting rifle). Ammo can be ordered online at the cost of ~10cents per round, as opposed to 60 cents per round for 30-06, or over a dollar a round for a 12 gauge slug.

As for 'sport' hunting being fair: the vast majority of hunters in my area are rural poor who rely on the substantial amount of food of their yearly deer allowance. Additionally, due to our elimination of large predators here in upstate NY, whitetail deer are overpopulated, and the take by the hunters is critical in managing the populations.
posted by ba3r at 6:55 AM on November 22, 2004


Course no one goes for the real challenge: deer hunting with a spear.

My friends hunt wild boar with a spear. Of course, at least one of them has a Taurus 9mm as backup.
posted by bashos_frog at 7:04 AM on November 22, 2004


” Actually, it is illegal to put any sort of guidance package on a model rocket, regardless of scale.

Do you have any background on that? Googling didn’t bring up anything and I know hobbyists that have use servos and gyros to control the flight path of their rockets.
posted by Tenuki at 7:15 AM on November 22, 2004


And do you think there will always be supermarkets?

Yes, yes I do. Why wouldn't I?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:20 AM on November 22, 2004


And do you think there will always be supermarkets?

Yes, yes I do. Why wouldn't I?


Well, I'm not some nutty survivalist or anything, but you never know when something terrible might happen. Modern civilization looks stable, but I can think of a few ways which might cause it to fall down.

Speaking as a hunter and avid outdoorsman, this is a terrible tragedy. This also speaks of a problem with hunters crossing state lines and coming from the city. I've seen this happen more and more lately. Some weekend warrior city folks come out to the country and walk over anybody's land and not only take game of peoples property. Not to mention all of the damage done by missed shots, trash left behind, and wounded livestock and game. Property owners will now have more fear of these city hunters and are much less likely to actually give permission to those who ask it because they are afraid of what the bad apples did to their land.
posted by Numenorian at 8:09 AM on November 22, 2004


Property owners will now have more fear of these city hunters and are much less likely to actually give permission to those who ask it because they are afraid of what the bad apples did to their land.

Damn right they will. My parents try to stay the hell off their OWN rural property in Wisconsin during hunting season because drunken louts from Milwaukee like to tromp around blasting anything that moves.

...nothing like coming home from shopping to find a nice bullet hole in your door to change your mind on hunters. The beer cans floating in the pond, trampled plantings & sundry vandalism are merely icing on the cake.

Bird watchers, on the other hand, are nice people. They clean up after themselves, they ask nicely, and they're just generally pleasant. To my mind, hunters are assholes -- I'll probably change my mind when I see some hunters taking the initiative to clean up after the jerks. But we all know it ain't gonna happen.
posted by aramaic at 9:19 AM on November 22, 2004


To my mind, hunters are assholes
Bird watchers, on the other hand, are nice people


All hunters must be Republicans and their bird watching counterparts are obviously Democrats.

Good thing we don't stereotype here on Metafilter!!!

Isn't ignorance bliss?!!!!
posted by a3matrix at 9:47 AM on November 22, 2004


All hunters must be Republicans

Now where did I say that? I said: hunters fuck up my property, and indirectly threaten the lives of my family members. Bird-watchers don't. Hunters didn't, some years back, but they do now.

a3matrix: you wanna maybe learn how to read? Or would that impair your ability to leap to conclusions?
posted by aramaic at 10:05 AM on November 22, 2004


My friends hunt wild boar with a spear.

Friends plural? One spear between 'em?

Seriously though, I've heard wild boars are mean -- and that they will eat people if they find one helpless. To hunt those beasts I'd want more than one friend and more than one spear.

Of course, at least one of them has a Taurus 9mm as backup.

That's more like it. Hollow-points'd be nice too.
posted by davy at 10:06 AM on November 22, 2004


Bit of an overreaction there, a3matrix. aramaic was simply speaking to personal experience.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:23 AM on November 22, 2004


Coincidently, I watched a vegetarian choke on a piece of mis-swallowed carrot this weekend. I laughed and laughed and laughed.

Poor fucker bought the big ticket though. It occurs to me now that perhaps I should have done a Heimleich maneuver. Oh well. Too late now! Heheh.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:25 AM on November 22, 2004


Also, I don't believe hunting in Canada is quite so... drunken, stupid, and dangerous. I've never heard of a Canadian shooting up the locals, I don't think I've ever heard of drunk Canadians shooting their buddies by accident, and I don't think I've even heard that Canadians tend to get drunk while hunting...

Mind, I don't pay much attention. Still, I think it tends to be something that one does to fill the freezer: as much about practical as it is about entertainment. 'sides, there's nothing much entertaining about freezing one's ass off in the bush.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:28 AM on November 22, 2004


” Actually, it is illegal to put any sort of guidance package on a model rocket, regardless of scale.

Do you have any background on that? Googling didn’t bring up anything and I know hobbyists that have use servos and gyros to control the flight path of their rockets.


Eh. Right after I posted that I thought I should look something up on it. My source was the father of one of my kid's friends, who is actively involved in model rocketry (traveled to the International finals in Prague) and he relayed that bit to me.

However, I did find several sources which detailed some regulations and codes of conduct regarding payloads. This was an interesting link - see the 5th paragraph down where they discuss concerns about guidance and homing packages related to model rocketry.

So. It seems likely that I'm wrong about the legality of guidance packages (which means I may have misunderstood what the kid's father was telling me) But it really got me wondering about model rockets, household chemicals, electronics stores and the wherewithal of some nutjob to use them.
posted by TeamBilly at 11:21 AM on November 22, 2004


Sorry. Not trying to threadjack. Carry on.
posted by TeamBilly at 11:24 AM on November 22, 2004


Don't get so upset aramaic. My post was largely sarcastic, and not personally directed at you, your comment was at the bottom and therefore easiest to quote.

I was seeing an inference that you did not write, but one that I did using your words taken out of context.

For the record, my cousin as at my mothers house hunting, opening day for deer in her area in NY. He doesn't drink at all, ever. So there goes the theory that all hunters are drunk.
posted by a3matrix at 11:46 AM on November 22, 2004


it's so much easier to eat other Americans.

mmmmm, I have an orange cranberry glaze that would be just perfect with long pig.
posted by dejah420 at 11:48 AM on November 22, 2004


This whole incident is just illustrates the reality that hunters are assholes.

I found the linked article while googling for information about Karen Wood, a woman who was shot and killed by a hunter in Hermon, Maine in 1988. She was in her own backyard, but the guy who shot her was aquitted because she had white mittens on while she hung laundry.

Anyway, read the article to read another justification of a hunting-related homicide. This guy's even biased enough to down-play property rights when it infringes on hunters getting their kills and subsequent erections.
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:58 AM on November 22, 2004


Guns don't kill people.

Hunters kill people.
posted by flarbuse at 1:09 PM on November 22, 2004


Yes, Curley, because there is a loony-hunter incident once every few years, all hunters must ergo be assholes.

The same can be said of MeFi members, given examples like this. No insult intended; just using turn-about for fair play.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:40 PM on November 22, 2004


Yes all hunters that you hear about in the news are assholes. That is just like saying all drivers are assholes and drunk based on the drunk driving numbers and recent crashes. I agree that the asshole hunters mentioned in this thread need to be punished. I don't think this is a problem with country idiots or city idiots (no group has the stupidity market cornered). This is more about private property rights (poaching) and this struggle goes back to the Middle Ages. Really this is about somebody who was trespassing and when confronted about it chose to shoot, instead of leave. No different than somebody firing arrows at the sheriffs who came to get him for poaching the "Kings" deer.

I believe that the reason you are seeing more people involved in fatal (to the human) accidents with deer, is that the number of animals taken by hunters (and the number of hunters) has gone down over the years.

On preview, what five fresh fish said.
posted by Numenorian at 1:55 PM on November 22, 2004


Yes, Curley, because there is a loony-hunter incident once every few years, all hunters must ergo be assholes.

The same can be said of MeFi members, given examples like this.


And the death toll from leaving Mayor Curley on the loose is unconscionable!

Not all hunters are assholes, but you're more likely to be irritated by an asshole if he's shooting around your house, I imagine. The guy who Mayor Curley linked to is without doubt a gold-plated asshole.
posted by me & my monkey at 1:58 PM on November 22, 2004


but you want a fully automatic weapon?...submit to a battery of psych exams
- caution live frogs

In New Jersey, applications for gun licenses (and the forms they send to your two references) includes questions about past psychiatric treatment. I'd guess that most states ask similar questions. Of course, you can simply lie.
posted by exhilaration at 2:14 PM on November 22, 2004


Wow. Hunting wild boar without guns is definitely a real sport. Pigs are mean and dangerous. Not that you can't get gored by a deer, but pigs are nasty.

For Davey: No, I wouldn't classify stampeding buffalo off a cliff as "hunting". Anymore than I'd classify heading cattle into a feedlot as hunting. Hunting doesn't have to involve sport, and what rifle armed deer hunters do is hunting; it just isn't sporting. I don't care about the deer, I'm just pointing out that shooting deer with high powered telescopic sighted rifles is hardly a sport.

Oddly enough on the subject of hunters and assholery, I once read that in Vermont there are more deer hunting licenses issued than there are actually deer in Vermont. Apparently most people who go "deer hunting" really go "drinking and shooting beer cans".
posted by sotonohito at 2:33 PM on November 22, 2004


sotonhito, I think perhaps you misread that. I think probably more licenses are issued than people in Vermont. I'm just guessing, but I imagine that the deer population is more than the human population in most semi-rural states. Oh and I agree with the the sights...open is the proper way to do it. I know some who only hunt with muzzleloaders (circa 1700's) or with bows. Actually, I think that the new compound bows and the specialty arrows are better to bring down deer. They just require more skill. A bullet tends to pass through the deer and tends to wound but not kill. A deer with an arrow in it tends to die on what would be a non fatal shot with a riffle, but I digress.
posted by Numenorian at 2:56 PM on November 22, 2004


Well, I finally did what I should have before I posted that, and I googled for numbers. Last year Vermont issued around 89,000 deer hunting licenses. The deer population in Vermont this year is estimated at 125,000 to 150,000. I'd still be surprised if everyone with a license bagged a deer, the deer population can't be quite that explosive; but it isn't (as I said I'd heard) more licenses than deer. Aparently I was relaying an urban myth.

I'm personally not a hunter, I don't object to hunting but it isn't my thing. When I want sport I go paintballing with my friends. My only problem there is how godawful inaccurate paintball guns generally are; sniping is not really an option.
posted by sotonohito at 3:58 PM on November 22, 2004


Yes, Curley, because there is a loony-hunter incident once every few years, all hunters must ergo be assholes.

The same can be said of MeFi members, given examples like this. No insult intended; just using turn-about for fair play.


No, they're all assholes. They spend their winter weekends seeking out beautiful creatures to kill for alleged "sport."

They're assholes because they'll tell you that they need to do it to keep the animals from overpopulating, and then turn around and tell you without a hint of irony that reintroducing large predators to an area where man has eradicated them is a bad idea-- because they'll kill all the game that the hunters are allegedly keeping from the brink of overpopulation.

They're assholes because they litter-- pile after pile of sandwich wrappers, beer cans, cigarette packs and bullet casings. And drive pick-ups with huge engines. And then they claim that all hunters are true environmentalists.

I grew up in a small town in northern New England where hunting was ubiquitous. And the biggest proponents of it were the biggest assholes. They also thought that dragging their sedentary, fat asses into the woods a few times a year and leveling technology that they couldn't duplicate at a slightly dumber animal made them more man than I. They were actually just assholes.

I won't respond to your ad hominem, fff, because I won't be able to just sit around and wait for it to escalate. Why don't you settle down, have a donut and play with your BSD "boxen"?
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:05 PM on November 22, 2004


Mayor Curley, mark me down as an Asshole then as I'm an avid hunter. I have no objection to reintroducing predators (carefull what you wish for). I am a firm believer in leaving the environment (sans game) as you found it. This means picking up your brass and any other "trash" you bring with you. I would like to also point out that mixing drinking and anything that involves motor skills (driving, hunting, fishing, even sex) is not a great idea.

This is just the same sort of Red State, Blue State paint with a broad brush bullshit that causes so much gnashing of teeth in here. Look it's quite simple, people hate being characterized as beer drinkin', pot-bellied, gun nut, christian nutjob, just as much as some would hate being called a pot smoking, tree hugging, gay rights, war protesting hippie.

If you want to say all hunters that you know of are assholes that is fine, but don't go off bashing a rather large group of people.
posted by Numenorian at 4:29 PM on November 22, 2004


BSD boxen? Whu? I'm dead curious as to where that particular reference came from.

As for ad hominem attacks, that'd be what you're engaging in wrt hunters.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:40 PM on November 22, 2004


I have no objection to reintroducing predators (careful what you wish for).

I don't think that the story you've linked to has anything to do with reintroduction. There have always been mountain lions in rural Southern California, and while their numbers may have recovered slightly since hunting has been banned, this certainly isn't the result of a reintroduction effort, and populations remain well below their historic highs.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:02 PM on November 22, 2004


I find your glee at the shooting deaths of five people extremely disturbing.

Dude, I know you're new here, but surely you lurked for a whlle. If that offended you, you're going to be in big trouble.

If you're a gun owner, southern, republican, or religious, you just kind of expect that type of thing. But remember, it's not hat
posted by justgary at 6:17 PM on November 22, 2004


...hate. They have your best interests at heart ;)
posted by justgary at 6:17 PM on November 22, 2004


just as much as some would hate being called a pot smoking, tree hugging, gay rights, war protesting hippie.

If you were going for some sort of parity there, I didn't get it - I wouldn't mind being called that at all. (Even if it's a little inaccurate with respect to pot - currently, anyway - and my hair's probably too short to qualify me as a bona fide hippie.)

But yeah, Curley did go too far into that broad-brush thing - even if he was speaking from personal experience, he would've been on firmer ground if he'd stopped at the "alleged sport" sentence.
posted by soyjoy at 7:50 PM on November 22, 2004


Kind of off-topic here, but I've always wondered - why are switchblades illegal? And I think butterfly knives are as well, right?
posted by Sinner at 8:43 PM on November 22, 2004


but then again by no means could what hunters do today be called "survival."

or are there no supermarkets in wisconsin?


What makes supermarkets morally superior?

It pisses me off to buy chemical/antibiotic-ridden feedlot beef from a supermarket when there are so many deer that you have to work to keep from hitting them with your car as they come down every evening to eat (only the buds of) your roses.

There are more deer these days than I've ever seen before- and it's not from suburban encroachment in the areas I'm talking about. I'm all in favor of more predators but until the rest of the folks gain a greater appreciation of mountain lions we're stuck with too many deer.

Deer this prolific are bad for the environment. Cattle ranching as it is usually practised is also bad for the environment. Therefore, cattle ranching should be discouraged and deer killing should be encouraged.

But no. You're not even allowed to eat the deer that get killed accidentally by cars, let alone pop the ones that show up at your back door eating your garden. Instead you're stuck paying good money on corporate cattle that don't taste as good and that wreck the environment. There's a conspiracy theory in here somewhere.
posted by small_ruminant at 9:04 PM on November 22, 2004


Sinner: There is no Federal law that makes switchblades illegal. Here’s a breakdown of which states allow them.
posted by Tenuki at 9:19 PM on November 22, 2004


Wow, hell of a link, Tenuki. Thanks.

From a brief glance at the page, though, I can't see the justifications for such restrictions (on switchblades and/or butterflies). I suppose I could guess at them, but do you have any idea?
posted by Sinner at 10:02 PM on November 22, 2004


But yeah, Curley did go too far into that broad-brush thing - even if he was speaking from personal experience, he would've been on firmer ground if he'd stopped at the "alleged sport" sentence.

You're getting soft in your old age, soyjoy. The one time I'm willing to speak up for the animals, you're saying I'm going too far.

Hunting is barbarism. Hunting is smelly fatsos destroying beautiful, living things purely for the sake of snuffing something out and patting each other on the back because Wal-Mart saw fit to sell them a gun and their clogged arteries didn't explode in the 1.5 mile circuit from their pickup. Hunting is extras from "Deliverance" who have never read anything longer than a Pepsi bottle pretending to commune with nature while farting in a treehouse built with what should legally have been child support payments.

I know hunters, and what they lack in intelligence and teeth, they make up for in threats of violence and mounted deer heads with stares only slightly less glassy than the hunters' wives, third wives and impregnated cousins.

Hunters will suggest that they're all some sort of Kurtz in America, more animal than man and tougher than any three non-killers. But they're full of it. The one thing of value I learned from growing up in Maine is that hunters are quick to throw a punch when you show them up verbally, but they're quick to draw into a fetal position when you return the punch if they're far away from that rack in the rear window of their truck. Seriously, that happened more than once. And they're bullies and they respond just like your mom said that bullies will.

So don't try and dress up hunters to me-- ten years later, I can't go back to my home town in early winter for fear that some inbred will put a 30.06 round in my back and claim it was an accident. And you can say "they wouldn't!" but they very well might because they don't think and they don't have a lot to lose.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:03 PM on November 22, 2004


MC, come on - I'm not trying to "dress up" hunters in any way, shape or form. But I think you understand that as soon as you particularize the objection to certain types of hunters, whether they represent 10% or 42% or 99% of all hunters, someone can knock that down with their own anecdote, toss off a "there goes the theory that all hunters are drunk," and move on, ignoring the larger issue. That is: The concept that a certain cult of people should, in today's society, be privileged to take lethal weapons onto other people's property and shoot at live moving targets in order to entertain themselves with the "sport" of death, while the rest of us just have to grin and bear it and hope we're not one of the dozens of accidental fatalities this season.

Whether the people killing animals as "sport" are inbred, deadbeat, redneck drunks or teetotalling gentlemen and gentlewomen clad in the finest outerwear from Lands End, that basic outrage still underlies it all, and your kitchen-sink descriptions of surface particulars are so over-the-top with local color as to distract from what I see as the root issue. That's all.
posted by soyjoy at 10:40 PM on November 22, 2004


The concept that a certain cult of people should, in today's society, be privileged to take lethal weapons onto other people's property and shoot at live moving targets in order to entertain themselves with the "sport" of death

Such a limited and limiting concept that is too. When I was a kid my Grandpa had coworkers who went deer hunting, and they'd bring him hunks of venison, and Grandma would prepare and serve it. And I loved it, especially "that gamey taste" Grandma complained about but Grandpa and me loved. And here's the rub: where in America can one buy deer meat at Kroger or Safeway? The fleshes of steer, pig, lamb, and of various fishes and fowls are all represented, one is beginning to find bison carried even by the chain stores, and the ethnic and farmers' markets offer goat and rabbit respectively, but neither the interstate supermarkets nor the more localized and/or specialized vendors offer cellophane-covered slabs of dead bambi.

I did once see, in rural Ohio, a recently roadkilled deer, and I also espied a local son approaching it with a plastic shopping bag and great big knife, but since I didn't have anything to contain whatever I might have been able to pay him to cut me anyway I sighed and drove on. And then two months later I unintentionally dry-humped a senior- citizen-driven Dodge Caravan with our Geo Metro, so for the past two years I've been sin carro -- and so I can't get out to where the meat-on-the-hoof is prone to strut itself.

So say whatever the fuck you want about those evil hunters, as far as I'm concerned they serve a purpose. Which you, until you open a whitetail ranch or begin aiming your auto at wildlife, don't do a damn thing to approximate. So. As long as I would have far better luck procuring parts of ococoileus carcass by posting 3x5 cards at local sporting goods' shops than by selecting a choice cut from Kroger's butchery exhibit, you can take your opinion and soak your head in it.
posted by davy at 3:08 AM on November 23, 2004


Mayor Curley, I am sorry that you had such a terrible experience with hunters in your hometown. I'm sure we all know the type of asshole you mean, and as I said before no single group has the stupidity market cornered. I can understand why people have a problem with hunting and are so concerned about animals that they change their lifestyle to be friendly towards animals. I can't say I like the folk who hunt (or fish for that matter) for "sport". I can understand if you hunt (Tranquilizers)/fish to help for the purposes of tagging for science. I can also understanding hunting/fishing for the food. I cannot understand hunting for trophy or sport. Yes you can actually clean a roadkilled deer, but it needs to be tagged by police/game warden and generally you want to be there almost immediately after the animal is killed because, as we all know, meat goes bad if you let it sit out. This is why most roadkill is left to rot. Of course I don't speak from first hand account on this, but I did grow up a country boy.

I think soyjoy is spot on with this. This thread has a large argument going back and forth about "evil" hunters, but I think the real issue here is property rights. I see this as being no different than a family being killed when they surprise a squatter or a robber in their home. The folks that were killed had the property rights to be in the area and the shooter did not. The shooter killed them during the confrontation.
posted by Numenorian at 6:36 AM on November 23, 2004


I would say that this story proves that cityfolk shouldn't be allowed to hunt or own guns. The Rednecks were the victims here.
posted by Megafly at 7:34 AM on November 23, 2004


It's a bit of black irony, but I wonder how many of the victims were card-carrying members of the NRA.
posted by moonbiter at 8:21 AM on November 23, 2004


I'm beginning to think Mayor Curley had a Deliverance experience. That'd make anyone hateful toward gun-toting yokels.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:55 AM on November 23, 2004


I'm beginning to think Mayor Curley had a Deliverance experience. That'd make anyone hateful toward gun-toting yokels.

Well, I have said "take off them panties, too."
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:44 AM on November 23, 2004


When I was a kid, I hated that members of my family were hunters. I was often a complete snot about the issue, usually at family meals where I ate chicken from the supermarket while everyone else ate deer.
Now I realize how hypocritical it is to eat genetically modified animals, raised in miserably crowded conditions, and then to complain about hunting. The deer, unless it had a hard time finding food because of overpopulation, had a pretty good life up to the moment of its death. Trophy hunting is awful, no doubt, but to say that anyone who enjoys hunting is a toothless yee-hawing redneck is ridiculous. Sure, there are a lot of assholes who like to kill shit. There are also a lot of decent normal people who enjoy providing food for their families that didn't come wrapped in plastic from the meat case.
posted by cilantro at 11:15 AM on November 23, 2004


There are also a lot of decent normal people who enjoy providing food for their families that didn't come wrapped in plastic from the meat case.

Hunting is fine to me if the participants need food.

Now I realize how hypocritical it is to eat genetically modified animals, raised in miserably crowded conditions, and then to complain about hunting.

That is exactly the reason that I resumed being a vegetarian in 1988.
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:33 AM on November 23, 2004


Sinner: Kind of off-topic here, but I've always wondered - why are switchblades illegal? And I think butterfly knives are as well, right?

The reasoning is about access in a fight. The law is usually against all knives that can be openned with one hand.

BC had(has?) a bit of wierdness in the law that come from two different statues coming together. You can not bring a knife into a bar (not even a swiss army knife) but the legal definitition of fixed blade knife only includes blades up to (I think) 6 1/4 inches, anything bigger is a dagger. So it was OK to bring an 8" K Bar to a bar but not a pocket knife.
posted by Mitheral at 11:40 AM on November 23, 2004


Hey Curley, did we live in the same town? Hehehe... yeah there's definitely some yokel hunters in Maine, though I'd say most of them around where I lived were of the better behaved sort. Definitely a bit too much drinkin' and plinkin' though.

I do miss having good deer steaks though, that's for sure.

In any event, the FPP incident is definitely a freakish anomaly. Any guy who would trespass, use someone else's deer stand, and open fire on its rightful owners is clearly a bit off. I too am surprised he wasn't killed, since he was outnumbered and outgunned.

Well I'm sure the news stories to follow will be full of enlightening information...
posted by zoogleplex at 1:05 PM on November 23, 2004


Yep - here's some interesting detail, keeping in mind that someone who's been hauled in for killing six people may not be the most unimpeachable source. But this account does at the very least fill in some of the "how could he just snap like that" spaces...On the other hand,"Authorities have said there was only one firearm among the eight hunters and it was unclear whether anyone returned fire." Hmmm. It sure would seem like they could've tested that rifle to see if it had been shot. The hunting party was just setting out, right?

The reports of "ethnic tensions" do seem to have some basis, if we can believe this fellow: "'It's pathetic. They let all these foreigners in here, and they walk all over everybody's property,' said Jim Arneberg, owner of the Haugen Inn."

Still, the shooter was no angel: "Minneapolis police said they arrested Chai Vang on Christmas Eve 2001 after he waved a gun and threatened to kill his wife." - but of course that didn't impede him from being out there shootin' away, as long as he was supposedly intending to aim at animals.
posted by soyjoy at 2:01 PM on November 23, 2004


This thread has a large argument going back and forth about "evil" hunters, but I think the real issue here is property rights. I see this as being no different than a family being killed when they surprise a squatter or a robber in their home. The folks that were killed had the property rights to be in the area and the shooter did not. The shooter killed them during the confrontation.

Exactly. More to the point this is about a homicide. The crime simply happened while the victims were hunting. That's all.
posted by DieHipsterDie at 9:29 PM on November 24, 2004


Exactly. The crime - gunning down fellow creatures for no good reason - simply happened while the victims were hunting. That's all.
posted by soyjoy at 9:08 PM on November 27, 2004


« Older George "Don't mess with my homies" Bush....  |  fish highway (via gordon.coale... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments