Wounded fox shoots man in leg

They don't call them 'sly' foxes for nothing! :lol:
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD5zjUbWpXY]YouTube - Deer Gets Revenge on Hunter[/ame]


I love this one of a deer beating up a hunter! LOL!! The deer beat the crap out the guy!
 
whatdidyousay! said:
YouTube - Deer Gets Revenge on Hunter


I love this one of a deer beating up a hunter! LOL!! The deer beat the crap out the guy!
Click to expand...

Pretty interesting that whoever was with him just shot a video instead of trying to help.

That was a young buck, and they can be really dangerous in the fall.

We have lots and lots of deer here.

I did take a picture of the poodle chasing one out of the backyard, but it jumped so fast, I only really got a picture of the dog at the fence.
 
Yeah Ive seen the deer video before. The dude was in an enclosure with the animal and underestimated it. It felt threatened so it did what he thought he could, maul the shit out of the guy.
 
Glenn said:
The title is misleading. It implies intent.
Click to expand...

No, it just states what happened. The gun didn't shoot the guy, the fox pulled (or pawed however you want to say it) the trigger. This caused the firearm to discharge, therefore the fox shot the hunter.
 
Dixie said:
No, it just states what happened. The gun didn't shoot the guy, the fox pulled (or pawed however you want to say it) the trigger. This caused the firearm to discharge, therefore the fox shot the hunter.
Click to expand...
It implies the fox intended to shoot the man.
 
Glenn said:
It implies the fox intended to shoot the man.
Click to expand...

You read too much into stuff. The fox was already wounded, it pulled the trigger with its paw in the scuffle causing the gun to go off. That's exactly what happened. Nothing about the title says the fox intentionally did it, if that were the case I am sure it would have read something like, 'Fox gets revenge and shoots hunter.'
 
You are entitled to your opinion. However, I have a B.A. in English, so maybe I prefer to see precise writing. I think it could have been better titled.
 
souggy said:
Calling all Alexes, calling all Alexes. Please report to the front desk.
Click to expand...

Lol.

I think the wording of the title is vague enough to imply both intent or accident on the fox's part but not really either in a strong sense. I personally would lean towards it implying intent, since there is no modifier, such as "accidentally," attached to the verb "shoot." But to "shoot" something usually implies intent.
 
Glenn said:
You are entitled to your opinion. However, I have a B.A. in English, so maybe I prefer to see precise writing. I think it could have been better titled.
Click to expand...

Good for you. I'm also working on a B.A. in English. :P I think we are looking at it differently based on our own perceptions. You say it implies intent, I say it does not.

Alex stated it is vague enough to be either way. To shoot something implies intent. Yes. But kids playing with guns, shoot them, accidentally wounding or even killing their friends and/or family. I don't think a child would intentionally shoot someone to cause them harm. Before you decide to go deeper with this, I am implying children who can't yet tell the difference between a toy gun and a real gun and they have irresponsible idiots for parents that don't lock their guns up. I've seen headlines that read 'Four-Year-Old Shoots Brother Playing Cowboys and Indians". Does this example title imply intent or accident? The one intended to 'shoot' the other, however it was real and discharged a bullet. Will the court hold the child accountable for his actions for 'shooting' the gun. At this age the child will readily admit to 'shooting' the gun in questioning.

Thoughts?
 
It only implies intent because we have grown to culturally accept that only people understand what guns are, or how to operate them. If we live in an accident-prone world, then "shoots" wouldn't imply intent anymore because it doesn't have the same cultural expectation.

It's like the word "kill." Even though we know someone could kill someone else by accident, we still associate the word with intent because more likely than not there's a reason why someone was killed-- so we expect a reason even if it's never stated.
 
Back
Top