This is why it’s not a good idea to eat an apple like corn on the cob.
Or get so hopped up on caffeine that you can’t sit still.
If I were the shooters’ friends, I’d make sure to make my voice as deep as possible when I was around him. You don’t want to let out a falsetto and get him confused.
POW!
The funny thing about that incident was that the guy who was shot in the face apologized to the vice president.
No, for me as a native German speaker, there’s no difference. Every German would understand the joke.
to EinsteinsHund
I beg to differ. But I will leave it at that since otherwise it would be a hijack.
Ok, let’s leave it at that.
True story. We went out one day to the wilds to shoot pumpkins. One of the kids came along, too young to have a gun- but he parents said Okay.
He had a big pack with him.
We them heard noises and looked over- there was a deer head with antlers moving in a bush. Some of the guys raised their rifles, but I pointed out no one had deer tags (we only shot ground squirrels, which had become a pest and carried disease).
Then the kid stood up, wearing the deer head.
So, you see- there are people that foolish.
The kid had a dead carcass on his head?! Yeah, at that point I think it’s a justifiable homicide.
Stuffed, but yeah. It would have been a horrible accident.
That’s almost as dumb as wearing a full-body bear costume.
That sounds rather fantastical.
Taxidermy deer heads are not stuffed with polyester fiber fill. Heavy. I promise.
Back in the day it was a plaster of Paris form. Now it’s dense styrofoam. Usually mounted on a board.
Quite a haul for a kid on a bike.
Back, how many years ago?
Did he, perhaps have help setting up his prank?
Or a fake shark fin. “He made me do it!”
So rationally, it seems at least plausible that the shooter who said “I thought he was a squirrel” was lying to cover his own ass. Maybe he was screwing around and just shooting for the heck of it, maybe he hated Carson and thought a hunting trip would be good cover for a murder.
I suppose, but I don’t think it’s that hard to believe that he was, indeed, mistaken for a squirrel. If you see only movement of his head (hair), where the rest of his body is obscured, then yeah, very plausible.
I’m not sure what about that makes it humorous.
mmm
This seems like a pointless rule. Most mistakes that are made in any endeavor are made by people “sure” that they are doing the right thing. I doubt that Carson’s hunting buddy took aim, thought, “that’s either a squirrel or Carson’s head” and then shot it.
No, I don’t think his current story is implausible either, there are plenty of hunters who don’t follow the rules, as seen by the annual 100+ death count from hunting accidents. Because shooting at “some hair that looks like a squirrel” is clearly a violation of chefguy’s rule as stated above. Obviously he didn’t see a head, or paws, or anything like that, just hair.
The point of such a rule isn’t “be sure”. @don_t_ask is right.
The point of the rule, albeit badly stated, is that “being sure” means actively questioning your perceptions, looking both for confirmation and for things that disconfirm your perception, deliberately evaluating everything then and only then taking action.
But that sort of standing skeptical distrust of your own perceptions is a learned skill that very few people develop in their ordinary lives. And as such rather few hunters take into the field. I’d wager younger hunters are even worse than that, based on both inexperience and on youthful impulsivity.
The nature of hunting is such that prey will often show only fleeting shot opportunities. If you are to take that shot at all, you need to be quick. The wise choice is to reject fleeting shots out of hand & await the ones you can take with careful deliberation. But that may mean rejecting 9 out of 10 opportunities. Which requires a lot of self-discipline.
So instead of “measure twice; cut once” caution, they recklessly go with their first impression, perhaps amplified by excitement, machismo, and / or recreational substances. With statistically predictable tragedies following as surely as night follows day.
I’m afraid that I don’t grant the universal wisdom of @Chefguy’s (parent’s) rule: give a kid a gun, but then tell them to be super duper sure they know what they’re shooting at.
I would not be the least bit surprised if the shooter here was certain, for all of the second or two they had the back of the victim’s head in sight, that they were sure it was a squirrel (I think @Mean_Mr.Mustard’s scenario is entirely plausible: kid clearly has brown hair, and he was in fact shot in the head). The idea of “you have a gun, but also are shooting at targets that are small and move suddenly and need to be 100% certain” is contradictory.
If this were a systems analysis, I’d say this is a bad system. Maybe instead, don’t give kids guns? Or, because I know that’s just not an option… how about everyone *wear bright orange clothing, to include a bright orange hunting cap, not, for example, camouflage, which is a fucking stupid thing to wear around gun-wielding teenagers in the woods.
But of course, FWIW, we don’t even know that he was shot by another teenager. Could have been his own father or mother for all we know!
*ETA: Here, I admit I am making an assumption. We don’t know what they were wearing. Same could have happened if they were just wearing jeans and a hoodie. But I would wager they definitely weren’t in bright orange with an orange hat.
To be clear, I totally agree with you and LSLGuy above. If that rule makes hunting 10x more difficult, and it’s therefore ignored or slid over by most hunters, then that’s a systems failure. I’m just pointing out that by a non-hunter’s interpretation, the shooter did no analysis to determine this target was definitely a squirrel and couldn’t possibly be a human.
These two wouldn’t possibly be competing over a girl, would they?
It’s designed to at least mitigate the number of people killed or injured in hunting accidents. Few things in life are foolproof, but to not give the warning/advice is irresponsible. It’s also the admonition for the military, although the past has shown it’s not always followed.