Gun Nuts Attack Gun Nut

The BBQ Pit
1

Here is the article.

Basically, a man who has been doing lectures and television shows about hunting happened to mention in his blog that military assault rifles were not for hunting, but for terrorists.

"Zumbo’s fame, however, has turned to black-bordered infamy within America’s gun culture – and his multimedia success has come undone. It all happened in the past week, after he publicly criticized the use of military-style assault rifles by hunters, especially those gunning for prairie dogs.

As hunters, we don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. . . . I’ll go so far as to call them ‘terrorist’ rifles."

It seems to have ruined his career.

Not that I am going to lose any sleep over a big game hunter falling in disgrace with the NRA, but it seems to show that the gun nuts just refuse to differentiate the use of any firearm, against any target, for any reason whatsoever.

And yet they wonder why most people are for gun control…“why shouldn’t I be allowed to shoot a machine gun at a bunny - it is my right!”
Happy Easter to all you assholes.

2

I think that what offended the NRA was the association of “terrorism” with assault weapons.

Let’s look at who has made use of assault weapons:

[ul]Mir Aimal Kasi (2 killed, 3 wounded)[/ul]

[ul]David Koresh and his cult folllowers (4 killed and 16 wounded)[/ul]

[ul]Patrick Purdy (5 small children killed, 29 children and 1 teacher wounded)[/ul]

[ul]James Huberty (21 killed, 19 wounded)[/ul]

[ul]Joseph Wesbecker (7 killed, 13 wounded)[/ul]

[ul]Gian Luigi Ferri (8 killed, 6 wounded)[/ul]

Were any of these actually terrorists?

Mir Aimal Kasi was an Afghani with a background in gun running, but he was not backed by a terrorist organization (other than his village lionizing him posthumously), besides which those CIA people needed killing.

David Koresh did not run a terrorist organization, he ran a constitutionally protected religious cult – besides which, those FBI people needed killing, and those children in his cult needed impregnating.

Patrick Purdy was not a terrorist, besides which, all those delinquent librul children needed killing.

James Huberty was not a terrorist, besides which, all those people eating supersized McDonalds crap needed killing.

Joseph Wesbecker was not a terrorist, besides which, those bureaucrat supplying paper producers needed killing.

Gian Luigi Ferri was not a terrorist, besides which, those lawyers, being lawyers, needed killing.

What it comes down to, is that the most notorious assault weapon massacres were not carried out by terrorists, but in fact were done by good old fashioned, constitutionally protected, bat shit crazy, gun nuts.

Where Jim Zumbo made his mistake was in confusing terrorists with patriotic assault weapon users going about their business killing people who needed killing.

Thank God, the American Flag, and Apple Pie, for the NRA in its ongoing battle to protect the constitutional right of gun nuts to get the job done.

Remember, people, better dead than red.

3

I noticed it too. The funny thing is Jeff Cooper (RIP), the anointed saint of the front sight and the 1911 in .45ACP, said very similar thing in his writings where he bemoaned the AK-47 clones and urged gun owners to pick up a .30-30. lever action if they wanted a street sweeper. And really, game hunting with military style semi-automatics is seen viewed by many hunters. This guy, with his work for protecting hunting rights and battling animal rights extremists, did more for hunting than any internet gun commando has.

A few notes for the animal rights extremist and anti-gun extremist that started this thread: Most people aren’t for gun control, at least not in the VPC /HCI /United Kingdom way. Hunting with a machine gun is not allowed by any states’ hunting regulations that I’m familiar with. The semi-automatic, military style rifles that this guy complained about and the internet gun commandos worship aren’t machine guns. Machine gun ownership requires a substantial background check with local law enforcement sign off, isn’t legal in all 50 states, and is restricted to machine guns made prior to 1986.

4

A thread title like that, and yet not a shot fired? What a rip-off.

5

I read his original article. It seems that the terrorist connection was that ARs and AKs (the legal semi-auto only US versions) looked like what both sides on the War on Terror carried around, and without a uniform, one looks kind of ‘terroristy.’

I’m going to grab some ear plugs and ear muffs and go shoot my pistol gripped shotgun in a little bit. I’ll probably look more like a criminal carrying it around than I would if I had chosen a model with a full stock and a longer barrel.

6

I’ve a Mossberg for snakes, mad dogs and home defense. I decided if I did have to shoot someone, I’d much rather the cops find me with a duck gun. What is the purpose of pistol grip and short barrel, being able to move with it in a hallway?

7

Are you talking about actual assault rifles, which are fully automatic, or are you talking about so-called assault weapons which are merely semi-automatic rifles available in many of the same calibers as ordinary bolt and lever action rifles?

Because when most people who don’t know anything about guns say ‘assault rifle’, they’re referring to ‘scary black guns’ - regular enough rifles that happen to be semi-automatic and black.

8

Good!

There are gun rights advocates who believe that an armed populace is right and philosophically in line with a free society. The issue of gun ownership is not only a matter of personal preference, but of philosophical belief. On par with advocating free speech, restrictions on governmental power, and other such things.

And then there are selfish assholes who are willing to sell out the rights of everyone as long as “you don’t touch my duck gun” or whatever.

The majority of NRA members, at least it seems to me, are of the latter type. They aren’t concerned with the philosophical implications of an armed populace - they just want to keep their hunting rifles and revolvers because of personal preference and it doesn’t matter to them if everyone else gets fucked.

The NRA largely caters to these people. Most of the NRA’s action aren’t really in defend of anything people would consider extreme. The NRA is actually very conservative and mild in what they choose to fight. People like to paint the NRA as some extremist organization, and yet it couldn’t be further from the truth - I don’t support the NRA because I think they’re pathetically weak when it comes to defending gun rights, and allow too much wrong to be comitted in the name of expediency.

Military rifle enthusiasts, and people who believe philosophically in the right of gun ownership (and there’s a huge amount of overlap there) are often marginalized and hung out to dry by the “don’t touch my hunting rifle… and what do you need that for? are you a terrorist?” crowd. And fuck them in the ass. They’re the same kind of people who will profess that they like freedom of speech, except for the people who say things that they don’t like.

People like him get a big “fuck you” from me, and they’re almost as much of enemies to real gun rights advocates as Brady et al are.

And the anti-gun crowd uses a divide and conquer tactic to exploit this, by rallying the duck gun crowd against people who defend against any infringement of rights.

Ignorance. You don’t even understand what it is you’re scared of. Even if we were talking about select-fire rifles, which we aren’t, people dramatically misunderstand the purposes of their design and their actual effective use. In most cases, for the purposes of doing whatever it is us gun owners like to do - shoot up daycare centers and such - a run of the mill pump action shotgun is far more effective.

But military-looking rifles look scary, and the military uses them, so they must be only good for killing people, right?

Yeah, that’s not completely detached form any sort of reality.

There are lots of reasons that people advocate gun control, most of them based in ignorance. But I doubt that disinterested people suddenly switched to being pro gun control based on some hyperbolic straw man of gun rights advocates.

Go eat a smug sandwich with the delicious taste of your head up your own ass sprinkled on top.

9

Was that excessive? It’s been a long time since I’ve done the pit thread thing, and I wanted to make sure I threw plenty of vitriol in there.

10

It’s a little .410 Mossberg. I mainly bought it because I thought that it was neat. It fits behind my little truck’s seat nice and ought to be good for Rattlesnakes come Spring and Summer.

11

Inconceivable. “An armed society is a polite society”, doncherknow? The headline should have been “Gun Nuts firmly, but politely, express their differences of opinion to Gun Nut”.

12

This is exactly and precisely why I don’t like the NRA.

I am not trying to be snarky, or facetious, but I truly and honestly can’t think of anything else guns are for. They are efficient lethal weapons that have no other purpose than to kill things by maiming them with high-velocity projectiles. Please fight my ignorance and tell me what other intended uses they have.

13

SenorBeef, I liked that post. Well done. :slight_smile:

I’m not really sure which side of the issue to come down on. I agree with everyhing Senor said, and the problem is that you have so many different groups that are both for and against gun control, each having their own agendas. Personally, I’m against gun control on principle because criminals who do use military weapons do not obtain them through legal means to begin with. We have “drug control” laws which outlaw narcotics and yet people abuse them, so clearly that policy would translate perfectly into policing firearms! On the other hand, I also say, do hunters really need military-issue select-fire weapons? Have they ever? What’s the point of mutilating your game by riddling it with ordnance? In the same likeness, you have the right to buy a car with 500 horsepower that can accelerate like mad and hit amazing speeds which can outrun police interceptors, but not everyone who has such a vehicle does this. Does this still make it wrong to own one?

As a shooter, I’ve encountered each of these types at the ranges I’ve been to. They aren’t hard to spot amongst the booths. There are some nutters out there who bring semi-automatic, civilian versions of high-powered military rifles, shotguns, and machine guns to the range to obliterate paper targets. These weapons are certainly not meant for hunting. Under what circumstance will they use these weapons? I suppose a well-armed militia is our constitutional right, but has there ever been a need for the citizenry to be more thoroughly armed than our military?

No. And if my home ever were invaded, my .45 ACP 1911 will defend me fine. That is why I have it. People like the terrorists mentioned at the beginning of this have a remarkable tendency to adopt rifles of the Kalashnikov variety for sole sake of killing others, not for defending themselves, so it’s not hard to see where Jim Zumbo’s comment came from.

14

I meant to say this in regards to military rifles as compared to hunting rifles, target rifles, etc. People assume that military rifle designs are primarily concerned with lethality - the ability to kill people. So that while non-military guns might have other purposes (hunting, recreation, home defense, etc), military guns are just made for killing people. But that’s too simplistic.

Combat has a whole different set of requirements than a hunting rifle for example would. Ruggedness and reliability are much more crucial. The ammunition is designed to achieve a balance of weight, controllability, accuracy, and lethality, where’s hunting weapons are really concerned with the latter two. Military rifles tend to be select-fire, but it’s not like the movies. The ability for automatic fire is primarily based on the need for suppression and fire ascendency (which is sort of a cascading suppression - the more you suppress the enemy, the less they fire back, which means that you’re suppressed less and able to suppress them even further), rather than because it is more lethal. Because it isn’t, really. It’s kind of hard to explain further without getting into a drawn out post about how militaries view small arms combat and what they design for.

And we’re not even talking about guns with select-fire capability. We’re talking about guns that are functionally identical to common hunting guns but look scary because they’re based off a military design.

Your average 30-06 hunting rifle is far more lethal to people, more accurate, and all around more powerful than an assault rifle. Your average 12 gauge shotgun is far more lethal in the sort of situations non-combat people would find themselves in. (I’m not even sure what scenario we’re working with here - are we evaluating the viability of going on a killing spree, the sort of thing that happens once every few months in a country with 80 million gun owners, that’s so statistically insignificant as to not justify any sort of policy decisions, but that we blow way out of proportion anyway? - if we’re talking about that situation, where you’re afraid someone is just gonna go nuts and blow people away, to the average person, a 12 gauge shotgun is clearly the best choice of weaponry)

But the AR-15 looks scary. And the military uses something like it. So that must means it’s really good at killing people, and should be banned.

15

The idea that criminals are using military weapons is really a media-created myth like a lot of things about gun violence are. The actual statistics show that “assault weapons”, even very loosely defined, account for about 2% of gun crime. It’s not really a significant factor at all.

No, but not everything has to be justified through what hunters could use. I don’t really care about hunters specifically, but I very much care about gun ownership. A gun doesn’t have to be justified for specific uses for me to advocate its legality. For what it’s worth, AR-15s are considered to be very handy varmint rifles.

Why are these people “nutters”? I’ve brought weapons to the range that have gotten me dirty looks from those NRA hunter types, but why would it be assumed that I’m crazy because of that? I enjoy shooting military weaponry - the functional, simple design, the history, the aesthetics, the ruggedness - what about that makes me a nutter?

The vast majority of all guns are never used for any sort of criminal purpose. They can be used for hunting, but commercial hunting rifles are superior for most things. But again, what does that matter? They’re not disproportionately likely to cause harm relative to other guns, so if someone enjoys shooting them as a hobby, why is that regarded with scorn and suspicion?

Well, that’s a pretty long debate in itself.

What terrorists are we even talking about? Paramilitary groups operating in hostile territory that arm themselves as you might expect with military weapons? Have there been incidents of terrorists gunning down Americans as terrorists acts that I’m unaware of?

To call a certain gun a “terrorist rifle” is just throwing around the word terrorism to scare people by association. It’s meant to create an irrational response.

16

Ahh, ok, I understand what you were talking about: to oversimplify, people instinctively equate big & scary = more lethality and collateral damage, when that is not true.

I guess my opinion is that when someone DOES “go nuts and blow people away”, society should have done everything in its power to prevent that person from doing it with a weapon that can mow down a large number of people in a short period of time. I know that in a free country, civilians will have access to firearms, and I know that there will never be a world where people don’t go on shooting rampages. I don’t want perfection, I just want us to try.

I can respect that other people find this opinion flawed, but I am pretty attached to it and don’t plan on changing it soon. In return, I won’t try to change anyone else’s. I hope that’s fair.

17

Yah, they steal them from gun nuts who obtained them through legal means – the more guns sold legally, the more guns then stolen and used to kill people.

Fortunately, there is no shortage of non-criminal gun nuts who obtain their weapons legally, thanks to the fine efforts of the NRA.

[ul]Patrick Purdy – killed 5 small children and wounded 29 others and a teacher – Chinese version of the AK-47 assault rifle, 75 round “drum” magazine – shot 106 rounds in less than 2 minutes – purchased from a gun dealer in Oregon. [/ul]
[ul]Mir Aimal Kasi – killed 2 CIA employees and wounded 3 others – Chinese version of the AK-47 assault rifle, 30-round magazine – purchased from a Northern Virginia gun store. [/ul]
[ul]Branch-Davidian – killed 4 ATF special agents and wounded 16 others – 123 AR-15s, 44 AK-47s, 2 Barrett .50 calibers, 2 Street Sweepers, an unknown number of MAC-10 and MAC-11s, 20 100-round drum magazines, 260 large-capacity banana clips – bought from gun dealers and at gun shows. [/ul]
[ul]Gian Luigi Ferri – killed 8 people and wounded 6 others – two TEC-DC9 assault pistols, 50-round magazines – purchased from a pawnshop and a gun show in Nevada. [/ul]
The simple fact is that the NRA stands front and centre in keeping the U. S. of A. awash in guns, making it possible for law abiding gun nuts to sweep the streets of undesirables, and for thieves to have a never ending source of guns that in turn are also used to kill people.

That’s why when it comes to gun caused deaths, America is such a safe place when compared to other first world nations. (It is safer, isn’t it? Isn’t it?) Once you subtract the criminals killed by other criminals, and once you subtract the undesirables that needed killing by law abiding gun nuts, you are left with a very low per-capita death-by-gun rate.

The rest of the civilized world just does not understand why it is so important to arm the citizenry. Damn dumb foreigners.

18

If you’re honestly looking for the utilitarian value in what to ban to prevent mass killings, as I detailed in a post above, 12 gauge shotguns are going to be the most effective method of doing it. Of course, they’re also probably the most effective means of home defense for the average person, for similar reasons. As I was trying to explain in my post above, military-style rifles aren’t especially adept at “mowing down large amounts of people in a short period of time” - it may seem counter-intuitive, but that’s because most people’s understanding of small arms tactics comes from action and war movies.

This doesn’t even raise the point that we’re not even talking about that - the “assault weapons” that people are looking to ban are based solely on cosmetic factors, not functional ones. The guns that look like an M16 that you see people owning, with a few exceptions, aren’t - they’re limited to semi-automatic fire, which makes them functionally identical to hundreds of models of hunting rifles out there. The only difference is that they look scary.

But no one will seriously, at this stage, push to ban 12 gauge shotguns. Because normal people own those, not those nuts who own military-style weapons!

The whole “assault weapons” thing is created by the media and anti-gun types to implant generalized fear of gun ownership in people by sensationalizing it, and also to divide and conquer - Brady and friends understand that they can’t get everything they want now, they’re going to have to chip away at gun rights with evey little “common sense” compromise. Since most gun owners are willing to sell out military rifle enthusiasts, that’s who they’re targetting. Next, it might be “saturday night specials”, or “high powered sniper rifles” - target a specific slice of gun law/culture/etc and try to isolate it.

19

Slugs or shells? I figure that shells would work better in open areas, but after the first shot or two, slugs would work better once the kids are hiding behind desks and under tables.

Personally, I think a mixed load, including some flares, would be much more aesthetically pleasing.

20

Wow Muffin. A handful of examples versus the millions and millions of peaceful, legal gun owners who do not, have not and will not cause any carnage at all have me on the verge of buying your straw man hook line and sinker. Ask me to please think of the children and I’m yours.