‘Dangerous game’

It’s a relative term isn’t it?

The vast majority of times, a deer will run if it sees you. They’ll often ignore motor vehicles, but if you’re out walking, a deer will alert on your movements, and if recognizes you as human it will bolt. Anecdote abound, and situations vary widely, but a deer, as a rule, will avoid humans.

On the other hand, a healthy buck in the prime of its life is more than capable of killing you, and quickly, if it gets the hankerin’.

I always carry a sidearm when out and about. Elk and moose are common in my roaming area, and I hear that wolves are getting closer.

The unfortunate in the story was apparently unarmed. Whether that would have made any difference in this case is debatable, but having a heavy caliber pistol cannot but improve one’s odds. What an embarrassing way to die!


13 thoughts on “‘Dangerous game’

  1. BTW in the US, north of 100 people are killed annually by deer. Usually the preferred method of homicide by deer is to jump through your windshield . …

      • Antlers are deadly weapons, and so there’s never any reason for anyone, including a deer, to have them.

        It’s called “sarcasm”. The deer (the toxically-masculine bucks at least) need to be forced to go into conflict resolution classes, rather than fight each other for mates. It’s for their own good. Then they can be de-antlered every summer before the rut. Besides, they have no right to defend themselves against hunters– That would be “taking matters into their own hands” and we all know that individual action without permission is wrong, most especially so if it involves violence.

        See; that too was sarcasm, reflecting the insanity of similar assertions, all coming from leftists. I am of the opinion that sarcasm is largely worthless as a tool of persuation, but it can be fun.

  2. By law, hunters in France cannot own or carry handguns, only long guns (bolt/pump action rifles or semi-autos restricted to 3 shots).

    Handguns are only allowed for target shooting and can only be used and carried in registered gun ranges. You could of course be licensed both as a hunter and a target shooter, but you still won’t be allowed to take your handgun out for hunting.

    So no Glock 10mm for you!

    • In our United States Code, there is a law against “Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law” (18 USC 242). If such deprivation results in a loss of life, the penalty can be death for the perpetrator(s).

      Morally speaking then, the French government is guilty of a human rights violation resulting in death. Anyone in custody merely for “violating” a gun-possession law is a political prisoner.

      • Yes, but do the French have a constitution? And if yes, does it impose any limits on the power of the government? I don’t know the answer, but to pick some other examples, in the UK the answer is “no” and in Holland it is “yes; no”.

    • Right around the same time Americans started the same transformation. It could be argued that it started in the immediate, Post Civil War period, or that it occured before the American Revolution. Certainly it was well under way by the early 20th Century, when the Progressive (Marxist) movement was fully established and entrenched in all the major universities.

      Instead of bringing offending legislators up on charges of violating their Oath to the constitution, we beg them to see reason and be nice to us, we entertain their false premeses, we pay their salaries and benefits, and ask them to please, please stop being criminals.

    • Quite apart from the pernicious influence of socialism and marxism, there is another issue. In Europe generally, historically there have been feudal rulers with absolute power, and “subjects” or “serfs” who do as they are told or die. The notion of limited government is not part of that. The notion of civil rights is not part of that either. There is some notion of what is called “rights” which are privileges granted by a benign ruler, but that’s a different thing entirely — those privileges are granted at pleasure and may be withdrawn at any time at pleasure.
      Americans may find this hard to understand because of growing up in a nation which does have rights and limited government. At least in theory — practice is another matter. But the theory actually makes a difference in practical situations.
      Those of us who immigrated from other countries tend to know the difference. Not necessarily in full; I did not read the Dutch constitution until I was an American citizen. In Holland civics is not a school subject. While Dutchmen probably know there is a constitution, few have ever looked at it and certainly schools don’t talk about what’s in it. Nor do they mention there is such a thing as the Dutch declaration of independence.
      This stuff is worth understanding. Take an hour or two to track down the text of some European constitution. (If there is one; the UK has none, for example.) The Dutch one can be found in English, a good official translation. Take a look at what it tells you about rights, and whether those rights are subject to infringement under color of law. Look at what recourse you’d have, if any, against unconstitutional government actions. (In Holland, the answer is “none” — the constitution explicitly says that!)

Comments are closed.