Farmer shoots woman, mistaking her fo...

Farmer shoots woman, mistaking her for groundhog

There are 110 comments on the WTLV story from May 9, 2014, titled Farmer shoots woman, mistaking her for groundhog. In it, WTLV reports that:

A 22-year-old woman is dead after a farmer mistakenly shot her thinking she was a groundhog in the tall grass.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WTLV.

“If it ain't broke don't fix it”

Level 9

Since: Jul 09

Arcadia, LA.

#25 May 10, 2014
Sen Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
Well isn't that warped?
I don't think homes with claw hammers are less statistically safe than those without claw hammers.
Homes with guns are less statistically safe than those without guns.
The actual point about household accidents is that accidents happen. It would be a smart thing to reduce unnecessary risks. You think guns are necessary because you have this imaginary notion of home defense scenarios - very rare. But understanding all this would mean being able to comprehend statistics, and tee baggrz don't do data. They do mythology. That's why they're disgusting and dangerous, in addition to the rank bigotry.
Here's a statistic for you: you don't want a gun in your home, then don't keep one. You want to live in a country where you can tell people what to keep in their home, then move back to Cuba. With the later, the U.S. will be a bit better off with one less raving lunatic. And that is a statistical fact.

“If it ain't broke don't fix it”

Level 9

Since: Jul 09

Arcadia, LA.

#27 May 10, 2014
have you been drinking wrote:
<quoted text>That's not a statistic. Are you knew to our language?
You and your gerbil can move to Cuba with her, and make it a three-fer.

Level 6

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#28 May 10, 2014
Sen Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
Well isn't that warped?
I don't think homes with claw hammers are less statistically safe than those without claw hammers.
Homes with guns are less statistically safe than those without guns.
The actual point about household accidents is that accidents happen. It would be a smart thing to reduce unnecessary risks. You think guns are necessary because you have this imaginary notion of home defense scenarios - very rare. But understanding all this would mean being able to comprehend statistics, and tee baggrz don't do data. They do mythology. That's why they're disgusting and dangerous, in addition to the rank bigotry.
Tell you what.....

I'll give up my right to have a gun when you give up your right to shoot off your mouth.
Sen Rick Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

#29 May 10, 2014
SLY WEST wrote:
Home defense scenarios are not so rare in Detroit, there's been 4 in the last month alone. I love it when someone thinks they know what's best for everyone else based on their situation...very shallow thinking to say the least.
As I was saying, tee baggrz just can't do data.

It's a nation of 300 million. You mention without proof four in Detroit.

There's something wrong with your mind.

The statistics are clear: A home with a gun or guns is less safe than one without. They are a risk factor. As I said, this is not a reason to erase the Second Amendment; it's a reason to give guns and liquor to as many NRA households as possible.
Sen Rick Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

#30 May 10, 2014
dragoon70056 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a statistic for you: you don't want a gun in your home, then don't keep one.
There's no describing how dense you are. You didn't deal with the fact: Homes with guns are _less_ safe than those without.

You also proved my point that fundies and tee baggrz just can't understand statistics. It's the same way they completely confuse religion and science.
Sen Rick Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

#31 May 10, 2014
Bama Yankee wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell you what.....
I'll give up my right to have a gun when you give up your right to shoot off your mouth.
That doesn't speak to the point. Perhaps you are brain injury patient or something. Maybe from a gun accident. Maybe at a gun show. Those are always the funniest.
Krypteia

Thornton, UK

#32 May 10, 2014
Did she wake up at 06.00 and it all happened again !

“New & Improved..”

Level 8

Since: Oct 07

Formerly From Kenya

#33 May 10, 2014
Krypteia wrote:
Did she wake up at 06.00 and it all happened again !
Ok..that is a sick joke..but hey...got to have that here...

:)

Level 9

Since: Jul 11

.

#34 May 10, 2014
Sen Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
As I was saying, tee baggrz just can't do data.
It's a nation of 300 million. You mention without proof four in Detroit.
There's something wrong with your mind.
The statistics are clear: A home with a gun or guns is less safe than one without. They are a risk factor. As I said, this is not a reason to erase the Second Amendment; it's a reason to give guns and liquor to as many NRA households as possible.
.... http://www.google.com/url...

There you go blowhard, haven't seen a shred of proof for your delusional rant, maybe you should lay off the Kool-aid for awhile

Level 9

Since: Jul 11

.

#35 May 10, 2014

Level 9

Since: Jul 11

.

#36 May 10, 2014
Sen Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
As I was saying, tee baggrz just can't do data.
It's a nation of 300 million. You mention without proof four in Detroit.
There's something wrong with your mind.
The statistics are clear: A home with a gun or guns is less safe than one without. They are a risk factor. As I said, this is not a reason to erase the Second Amendment; it's a reason to give guns and liquor to as many NRA households as possible.
Your delusional opinion doesn't mean squat.....link please

“New & Improved..”

Level 8

Since: Oct 07

Formerly From Kenya

#37 May 10, 2014
Best-o luck...
Sen Rick Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

#38 May 10, 2014
SLY WEST wrote:
<quoted text>
Your delusional opinion doesn't mean squat.....link please
But you freeeks think a scientific Theory is "an opinion." Most of the right wing believes the earth is under 10000 years old. You won't even accept that co2 causes heat to be trapped.

And after being such studiously ignorant, denying ideologues who can't fathom statistics you make a show of asking for data? Sure. Your "statistics" are four made up claims about home defense in Detroit...you literally don't know "statistic" from "anecdote." It's simply beyond your comprehension.

And of course the Harvard...anything...won't hold any water who are proud of considering Rush Limbaugh to be a research scientist.

Sick.

>A 2007 study by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health looked at household firearm ownership and homicide rates in all 50 states and found dangerous links. The presence of guns in a home is a risk factor for homicides at home for women, children and men of all ages, and the risk is higher for women.

>What's more, household firearms are “used to kill Americans both in their homes and on their streets," the study says. The authors suggest that guns kept in a home can find their way onto the street through burglary, and the violence that plagues many urban areas becomes deadly when those guns are circulating.

>Guns at home are also the weapon of choice for suicide, according to 2005 data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The numbers are tragic: There were 8,937 fatal suicides in 2005, and guns were used in nearly 52 percent of them. And three-fourths of all suicides occurred at home. Here's another sobering statistic: In school shootings, about 38 percent of guns used by students come from their homes.

http://www.pro gressive dot org/mp/fuentes070208

Anyway, as I said, I want NRA types to have guns in the home. And lots of alcohol to go along with the guns. Because guns make homes less safe statistically than those without.
Sen Rick Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

#39 May 10, 2014
justaguess wrote:
Best-o luck...
Hey Birther....wait, that said it all.
LOL

Dayton, OH

#40 May 11, 2014
Sen Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
As I was saying, tee baggrz just can't do data.
It's a nation of 300 million. You mention without proof four in Detroit.
There's something wrong with your mind.
The statistics are clear: A home with a gun or guns is less safe than one without. They are a risk factor. As I said, this is not a reason to erase the Second Amendment; it's a reason to give guns and liquor to as many NRA households as possible.
The only "tee baggrz" here are YOU and FERRET, ya flamingfaggotz...
Instigator

Fort White, FL

#41 May 11, 2014
Sen Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you are. Just as surely as the number of gun deaths from accidents, suicides and domestic disputes dwarfs the number of these home defense scenarios, which are statistically rare.
A home with a gun is statistically less safe than one without. I say put more guns in the homes of these NRA types, but with a requirement that every adult in the place drink at least the equivalent of six beers a day.
That'll winnow the problem down.
You are obviously so far left, that you've become off balance.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

There is a good reason we have an inalienable right to protect ourselves and this right is protected by our Constitution. You and a few and others of you ilk (that are actually in power) may get that changed one day.

But as greed, thieving, rape and murdering unfortunately still exists in our society, and probably always will... I shall continue to take advantage of my rights, that were so written my men far wiser and more understating of the potential worst side of human nature... that thankfully, most of us haven't had the displeasure to experience.

I certainly hope nothing happens to you or your loved ones to ever make you change your view on the subject.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#42 May 11, 2014
Ana wrote:
(((He fired a rifle about 165 feet away, hitting Natasha in the head.)))
(note, this is from article)
165 feet away and Natasha was hit in the head, that sounds like one sharp shooter to me, if that statement is true at 165 feet away.
I guess freak things will happen.
If their Aim was good enough to shoot something in the head from 165 feet away, then their eyesight is good enough to distinguish a Human from a Groundhog. There is absolutely no resemblance whatsoever.
Instigator

Fort White, FL

#43 May 11, 2014
pusherman_ wrote:
<quoted text> If their Aim was good enough to shoot something in the head from 165 feet away, then their eyesight is good enough to distinguish a Human from a Groundhog. There is absolutely no resemblance whatsoever.
Just sort of wondering why a 22 year old woman would be doing laying in tall grass shooting a BB gun at a target in the first place? This behavior would be more akin to child or teenager I would think. Either way, she had the right to if it was indeed her land.

And also was this poor lady on his property, her property or public? If 165 feet away, you need to think of a football field and nearly a half of another one (counting end zones). From an elderly man with probably poor eyesight, to boot.

But if he shot as the story said, with tall grass as a factor... I'm not so sure that any person on here reading this would be able to distinguish clearly from a person laying in grass from a varmint getting in your garden. No, he shouldn't have took the shot if he wasn't sure what he was shooting at.

Either way, IMO it would have required a scope especially for an elderly man to even remotely distinguish a person from a groundhog in that scenario. You may a see brown hump pop up over grass and you could easily confuse it for a groundhog. If you wasn't expecting anyone to be there, then i can see where he may have mistakenly fired the shot.

With all the variables involved, I would have to disagree with you. It's not that clear cut.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#44 May 11, 2014
Instigator wrote:
<quoted text>
Just sort of wondering why a 22 year old woman would be doing laying in tall grass shooting a BB gun at a target in the first place? This behavior would be more akin to child or teenager I would think. Either way, she had the right to if it was indeed her land.
And also was this poor lady on his property, her property or public? If 165 feet away, you need to think of a football field and nearly a half of another one (counting end zones). From an elderly man with probably poor eyesight, to boot.
But if he shot as the story said, with tall grass as a factor... I'm not so sure that any person on here reading this would be able to distinguish clearly from a person laying in grass from a varmint getting in your garden. No, he shouldn't have took the shot if he wasn't sure what he was shooting at.
Either way, IMO it would have required a scope especially for an elderly man to even remotely distinguish a person from a groundhog in that scenario. You may a see brown hump pop up over grass and you could easily confuse it for a groundhog. If you wasn't expecting anyone to be there, then i can see where he may have mistakenly fired the shot.
With all the variables involved, I would have to disagree with you. It's not that clear cut.
Dude, a football field is 300 feet long. there are 3 ft in a yard, a football field is 100 yrds. 300 ft, he shot that woman in the head at little over 50 yrds. no it wouldn't, apparently his eyesight was good enough to have shot her in the head. so how poor could his eyesight have been? it is very clear cut to me, if you can see to shoot her in the head, then you would surly know it was a human head if you zeroed in on her head..

“We're all Bozos on this bus”

Since: Jan 07

Chicago, IL

#45 May 11, 2014
Well, the obvious solution is lots more guns and to use them to shoot holes in the ozone layer.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
A to Z songs by title or group! 4 min wichita-rick 575
News No pocket change: Va. man delivers 300,000 penn... 6 min Could be true 8
News Mums sick of kids' illnesses - 18 times a year 8 min Emerald 5
News British mothers drinking during pregnancy put u... 18 min streetglidehoney 8
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 27 min Enzo49 68,046
Name an item game 42 min andet1987 707
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 45 min andet1987 32,392
What Turns You Off? 1 hr Enzo49 82
TRUMP, Donald (Jun '15) 1 hr Liar 372
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Hanky 209,770
More from around the web