…allegedly from a dispute over tree-stand ownership???
This is not to take away from or minimize the tragic, brutal and untimely death of five individuals and the wounding of three others. My sympathy and heartfelt condolences go out to all the families that have suffered a loss from this mindless incident. Really mindless.
That said, what is the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort really thinking here? The way I see it, this terrible incident could have happened just as easily had the guy had a bolt action 30-06, a semi-automatic .22, or a handgun. So why are they going for a ban? Would they be calling for a ban on hunting rifles had the same thing happened with a 30-30?
FTR, I don’t own an assault rifle, and I don’t even live in WI. But when I read this, it did seem like this is a knee jerk reaction to, undeniably, a terrible tragedy. Kind of like calling for a ban on airplanes after 9/11. It’s not the plane, it’s who’s piloting.
I’m not trying to re-open a gun-control thread, but if this ban were to take effect, wouldn’t the next logical step be to ban other firearms if another incident should take place with a non-military firearm? Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but to me it sounds like such a…martial response.
**MILWAUKEE, Nov. 22 /PRNewswire/ -- **The Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort extends their deepest sympathy to the families and victims of the horrifying and deadly shooting in Sawyer County, where a man used an SKS semi-automatic assault rifle to gun down five hunters and wound three others. This tragedy demonstrates the urgent need for an effective federal ban on military style assault weapons. But since President Bush and Congress allowed the federal assault weapons ban to expire in September of this year and seem disinterested in passing a new law, Wisconsin lawmakers should, in the meantime, pass a comprehensive statewide assault weapons ban. Reports suggested that the shooting occurred after an argument escalated when hunters found 36-year-old Chai Soua Vang using a tree stand belonging to someone else.
Completely agreed. It seems people are quick to jump to conclusions and make unfounded assumptions. 9/11 sort of rings some bells. Congress was quick to pass the Patriot Act when a disaster struck, and here, in the aftermath of an admittedly devastating incident, lobbyists are going to be at it again state-wide.
The funny thing is many of the legislators who promote stricter gun laws often carry concealed themselves. I read an article on this same topic a while back; I’ll link to it if I can pull it up again. Basically, it referenced several senators and congressmen (and I think a congresswoman, if not more!) who indeed carry concealed.
But it’s politics, what do you expect? I’m sure this anti-gun commission is just using this issue to wedge their way into anti-gun legislation; a sort of “hey, look what happened when X guns were legal.”
Before we (we in a general sense, however here ‘we’ means Wisconsin, even though I have no relation to the state) start passing legislation left and right (a little allusion to the Patriot Act, of which I completely disagree), let’s stop and think.
I own an SKS. It’s cheap and accurate. But If I had the money, there are several hunting rifles that could be more accurate and deadlier. It’s the moron pulling the trigger, not the gun.
So a magazine that holds 20 rounds (and was found empty) and the ability to fire them rapidly has nothing to do with 6 people (yep, one of the wounded has since died) dead?
If this guy had had a rifle or a pistol, there is much less chance that he would have been able to get that many shots off before someone had reacted. Either to take cover or to stop him.
Yes, idiots kill, but better weapons make it much easier and more efficent for them.
Anyone who was a decent marksman could have done the same thing with a Winchester repeating rifle or a World War I era bolt-action rifle. It isn’t the weapon, it’s the fucked-up person who is pulling the trigger.
Every time something like this happens, you can set your watch by the response of so-called gun control groups issuing press releases demanding the ban of X, where X is the latest “demon weapon”.
(Mr. Vang has since claimed that he was fired upon first.)
I have not hunted deer. I know several deer hunters, though, and most of their stories involve being either drunk or hung over at dawn, when hunting season starts. I’m leery of being in the woods, in the faint light of dawn, with a lot of armed drunks. It seems hazardous, to say the least. :eek:
I HAVE hunted deer, and within the last 48 hours. The misconception of “woods full of armed drunks” continues, apparently; And this murderer in Wisconsin will undoubtedly further the belief (along with the predictable call for even more regulation).
As far as your friends, I doubt if they really qualify as hunters. In 15 or so years of hunting, I’d say the type you describe (drunk on their stand) is a negligible minority. I only recall one similar instance in our camp (he wanted to practice with his rifle after several beers), and he was kicked out. Maybe my experience is atypical, but I think not (otherwise the accident rate for hunters would be much higher).
Try Thompson Center. There are a couple of working replicas of frontier-era rifles and quite a few modern designs there. Let me try to dredge up some memory of other manufacturers from my parents’ competition days, too.
It’s hard to take cover when you’re wearing blaze. None of the fleeing vicitms was apparently armed.
Um, the guy chased his unarmed vicitms untill he was able to shoot each one in the back. I’m sure some tried to hide behind a tree or some such obstacle instead of running away in the open with their blaze orange on.
A 30/06 or any hunting rifle could have produced the same results, he might have had to chase them further or reload once, but the guys goal was to kill ALL the hunters who came to the aid of the downed freind.
Oh, forgot to add, why not blame it on a good scope. Anyone with a good scope and a sighted in weapon can pick off other hunters from just about any distance.
Let’s ban scopes. Or at least the powerful ones.
(I believe Vang had a scope on his gun)
With your logic, there will always be a gun or rifle that is better than the rest for “killing humans”. If we ban that one than the next best one rises to the top and etc. To the point that there won’t be any legal rifles left to hunt with.
The current laws are fine, just enforce them.
With something like a Remington 700 bolt action and a Leopould 3x9 scope, he could’ve been accurate at some very long distances. Reloading time? No problem. Nobody’s going to cover 300 yards in the 10 seconds it takes to reload.
While I have not hunted within the last 48 hours, I have hunted in the woods of Wisconsin and the misconception of “woods full of armed drunks” is not such a misconception. Blackberry brandy is the Wisconsin hunter’s version of battery operated socks, though luckily my own family members tend to use coffee more than brandy these days.
While your (and my) ideal hunter is safe, I know of entire extended families (not my own) that glory in the fact that nothing is safe when they are hunting. Nothing like 30 drivers and 10 standers blazing away at the same deer.
Your statement that such hunters are a minority is probably true. But with hunting rifles being what they are, said minority has a disproportionate effect on the image of a Wisconsin hunter. It doesn’t take but a few nuts to cast a poor light on the 650,000 hunters in the woods of Wisconsin this week.
I beg to differ. While you may know such a group, any hunter worth their salt knows that alcohol can really screw up a hunt. It doesn’t keep you warm, the deer can smell it on you, it makes you pee more (another no-no), it makes you unsteady and more prone to fall asleep in the stand or under a tree. Now, drinking after the hunt is a go, but most hunters will wait to celebrate when they’re back at the cabin and safe.
Assault weapon or assault rifle? Trying to blur the difference, or ignorance?
Can the SKS be considered and assault weapon? It’s not an assault rifle based on today’s definitions. The AWB probably would not have had any effect on the SKS. I guess it depends on the variant.
Heh, an urgent need. So, it must happen a lot if there is an urgent need. Could not the same thing happened with any other type of rifle. Ever compare an SKS to a modern semi-auto rifle? Oh, that’s right, this is just a first step. No need to mess with facts if the end goal is in ‘site’.
UC:
I envy you your location. I moved from Milwaukee to MPLS about 7 years ago. I miss the place.
Its not that I know a single group such as I described, I know of at least five such groups in the small area where I grew up and the town only had 450 people within the city limits. Anyway, there are hunters and there are hunters. The folks who live in the city and drive to northern Wisconsin to hunt from the family cabin are much more likely to be serious about the whole thing that the folks around where I grew up (which is not all that far from the shootings actually). You know and I know that alcohol is not a good idea as it doesn’t keep you warm and smells bad. But then so does that thermos of coffee, the mothballs in the wool jacket, and not showering for a week. Oh, and the reek of cow flop may be de rigeur in most of Wisconsin, but it probably smells a bit out of place deep in the woods. Hunters from up north get dual duty out of those boots and clothes you know. Just look at Lambeau during a Packer’s game.
Hopefully most of the folks that I grew up with have grown out of that balogna and are now ‘worth their salt’. They’ll be much more likely to make it through a season alive that way.
Have a good Thanksgiving. Any way I can get some Usinger’s brats up here?
Congress was quick to pass the Patriot Act when a disaster struck, and here, in the aftermath of an admittedly devastating incident, lobbyists are going to be at it again state-wide.