Just heard a radio commentator who was discussing data fromAmerican Sports Data Incorporated. They provided the following comparison among particular sports in terms of annualinjuries per 100,00 participants in any given activity.
Football: 18.8 per 100,000
Soccer: 9.3 per 100,000
Cheerleading: 9 per 100,000
Hunting: 5 per 100,000
These figures are similar to what I've heard elsewhere.
__________________
"Shoot him again....his soul is still dancing"
I'm more for combining hunting with cheerleading. I would be happy to substitute a couple of hottie LSU cheerleader for beagles. Trust me, there is no way on earth that i would accidentally shoot one of them[8D][8D]
__________________
"Shoot him again....his soul is still dancing"
I'm more for combining hunting with cheerleading. I would be happy to substitute a couple of hottie LSU cheerleader for beagles. Trust me, there is no way on earth that i would accidentally shoot one of them[8D][8D]
I'm pleased to discuss the Cheney shooting as a hunting accident free of all the political baggage.
Some people like to glibbly state "There is no excuse! This shouldn't happen! This can only result from failure to apply the safety code!" I feel this misses the point. I'm an engineer by training. It would be just as appropriate to make the same statements about safety of engineered products. A bridge should never collapse in normal use, or a dam burst. A plane should never crash due to mechanical failure. A nuclear power plant should never fail and emit radiation. And yet we observe that these events do occur. When we look closely we find that the situation is pretty complicated and the glib confidence is not warranted. In the case of the vice president's shooting there were some contributing factors including the victim approaching the Vice President out of the setting sun (which would interfere with seeing) and from a ditch or depression. The VP rightly accepts all blame, but I view these as circumstances that make it a little more understandable how such an accident could take place.
I was driving home from work one evening along a main road in my suburb and ran a red light at a cross street. This is a heavy traffic time and there were plenty of cars present. I nearly hit a car that had pulled away from the cross street when the light changed -- I veered (no way I could have stopped) and the car braked. Thankfully no collisions occured and no tickets were issued. Everyone just drove on. I was disturbed at the thought that I could experience such a lapse of attention. I had not been drinking or taking drugs. I was not sick. I was not angry. I was not abnormally fatigued. I was day dreaming a little (about hunting pronghorn antelope, it so happens). I was not trying to slip through before the light turned red -- I flat out did not see the light change and my lane ahead of me was clear. I have not had an auto accident in 20 years. I drive a lot -- probably 30,000 miles per year -- in all kinds of circumstances. I drive in bumper-to-bumper stop-and-go commuter traffic to/from work. I drive in fast downtown 4-lane highway traffic. I drive on interstates through the wide open spaces of our country to visit relatives and to go on vacations/hunting trips. I drive a lot around my suburb hauling kids to schools, gymnastics, dance classes, movies, etc. I drive day, night, rain, ice, snow. I consider myself a seasoned, prudent driver. And yet, I made a major, major goof which COULD HAVE resulted in plowing my massive Chevy Suburban into the drivers's side door of a medium sized sedan.
What is the take-away lesson I'm driving at or shooting at? I'm not sure, other than to direct us away from thinking that it can't happen to us because we follow safe procedures. It CAN happen, because our "safe" procedures are cooked up by people and people are fallible. Positing as a conclusion of abstract thought that accidents can't happen if you follow the procedure is self-deceptive. Accidents DO happen and it isn't just slob hunters, reckless hunters, hunters who have not passed the hunter safety course that have accidents. We ought to think about how we might make mistakes that can lead to accidents. Our confidence in our ability to avoid accidents may be the seed of our future error. I have thought about some of my hunting procedures and think of frightening possible scenarios that my procedures do not protect against.
Hunting and shooting are dangerous and will always be. This does not mean we should not do them. The figures in the original post indicate that no sport is safe. No one is advocating that swimming be outlawed or discontinued because some people die while swimming. Benefits are conveyed by these admittedly risky endeavors. But we should bravely face the disturbing fact that accidents do happen and they can happen to us. This may cause us to be more on out toes and less complacent.
Just heard a radio commentator who was discussing data fromAmerican Sports Data Incorporated. They provided the following comparison among particular sports in terms of annualinjuries per 100,00 participants in any given activity.
Football: 18.8 per 100,000
Soccer: 9.3 per 100,000
Cheerleading: 9 per 100,000
Hunting: 5 per 100,000
These figures are similar to what I've heard elsewhere.
Injury incured while riding with uncle Ted Kenney
1 per 1
As a former rugby player, i can tell you that the injury rate in that sport is probably 999,999 out of 100,000.
Seriously, I am amazed at the low levels of injury associated with hunting thru time. Furthermore, many incidentsdo notdirectly involve guns. For example, falling out of deer stands is a biggie.
__________________
"Shoot him again....his soul is still dancing"
"Cars are deadly and should be outlawed immediately . . ."
Harrumph! I ressemble your remarks! Cars don't kill people, you know, people kill people! When cars are outlawed, only outlaws will drive cars! You will take my car keys away when you can pry them out of my cold dead hand! I will defend my constitutionally gauranteed right to drive my car . . . oops! Private vehicle ownership isn't explicitly protected under the constitution!
Indeed. Cars are much more dangerous to people than guns. A colleague of mine remarked once to me "Guns are soooo dangerous." I didn't contend this, but it really stuck in my craw. Dangerous? "Soooo dangerous?" Relative to what? Bungee jumping? Sword swallowing? Cars kill lots of people -- lots of young people not just old people. If no one has any "need" for an "assault rifle", by the same rationale isn't it true that no one really needs a Z06 Corvette using 405 horsepower to transport a maximum of two passengers down the road, no towing likely? Apply this horsepower versus need rationale across the board and how many vehicles would be left on the market? How many people need big SUVs? Aren't they a disproportionate danger? I drive a Chevy Suburban. Sometimes I have eight people in this vehicle and it serves its purpose well. Most of my miles I'm commuting to work and am the sole occupant. How does the "need" rationale apply here? Certainly this vehicle is a greater danger to others, should I pile drive it into their drivers's side door in a moment of inattention, than a smaller vehicle. "Guns are sooooo dangerous." Arrrrgh!
Hunting accident statistics
