When I said I’d put a post written by Gene on the blog?
And then 26 days passed and I hadn’t done it yet?
Well, HERE! (And please remember that Maaahhh Huzzband is a lifetime member of the NRA).
OK, read the article above first. I’m not going to rehash everything in there, but comment on a few points that I think are interesting or important.
Just to let everyone know where I stand, I am a lifetime member (endowment member, actually) of the NRA. I resisted joining for quite some time because I felt the organization was not truly representative of “me”. They are, admittedly, avid and effective defenders of the Second Amendment. Previously, however, I had a little bit of trouble with their “slippery slope” arguments against almost all forms of gun regulation. Two things changed my mind. First, someone said that the NRA needs me to help be that voice of reason and moderation, a point of view I believed. Second, after doing some research I found a lot of their positions reasonable, their arguments cogent, and the majority of their goals in line with my own. I am a gun owner (handguns, long-guns, and shotguns), but I am not a hunter. I own firearms for sport shooting and self-defense. In this analysis I am not going to go into my personal decisions about hunting or shooting, or why I made the choices I did. If you’re curious about that… ask the question and maybe I will answer it.
So, on to “my comments”. Basically, I have three, two about Mr. Zumbo’s comments and one about the characterizations of the NRA and gun owners in the article.
“Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity.” – Jim Zumbo
I have to say, I agree with Mr. Zumbo about that. I’m not a hunter, so I can’t really claim membership in the “hunting fraternity”, but I have to say hunting in general is not a very “sporting” prospect, hunting with firearms less so, and hunting with long-guns that have a high-rate of fire, large magazines, and other accoutrements probably the least sporting. Hey, its just my opinion. Hell no, I wouldn’t hunt a bear (or quail for that matter) with a pointy stick, but I also wouldn’t hunt him with a H&H Double or an AK-47. So, if Mr. Zumbo’s comment was an indictment of hunters who use “these weapons” to create an even more un-level playing field, hey he’s got a point. I have to say, however, using any firearm (or ranged weapon) against any animal is not exactly a “fair” competition.
“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’.” – Jim Zumbo
Well, there’s the rub isn’t it? This comment, I do take exception to, and it appears the rest of the NRA and the hunting community were right behind me. What’s wrong with it? Where should I start? First, we don’t call mini-vans ‘terrorist vehicles’ (many IEDs are planted in mini-vans), or 727s ‘terrorist airplanes’, or Iraq a ‘terrorist country’ (even when Saddam was in power). As a general rule, I despise sensationalist labels, and this is probably one of the worst. Labeling something or someone because of its ‘media connotation’ is, to me, akin to racism. That aside, rifles aren’t terrorists and I hate the idea of redirecting that responsibility from the people to the tools, and let’s be honest… terrorists would use and do use anything they can, from rifles to rocks to bottles of gasoline.
Finally (and this is also directed at those who demand that “assault rifles” be outlawed), there is no standard definition for the term “assault rifle”. The Clinton administration attempted to ban “assault rifles”, the bill defined an “assault rifle” as a rifle with a pistol grip, a bayonet lug, and a magazine capacity of 15 or higher. So everyone started getting AK-47 knock-offs without pistol grips (they had stock grips that do the same thing but look different), no bayonet lug (I’m sure the bayonet-toting bad guys were crushed), and a 14 round magazine… much safer. The problem is that you can’t regulate the weapons based on caliber (many rifles designed for the military use the same caliber as civilian hunting rifles), or magazine size (how many is too many? Two? The industry will design some way around that, and its silly anyway), or how a weapon “looks”. The bottom line – a .22 caliber single-shot revolver will kill you just as dead as an AK-47 or .30-06 hunting rifle or a shotgun or knife or a shovel. The difference in lethality between ranged weapons are negligible. There are only three meaningful differentiators concerning firearms – 1) rate of fire (fully automatic vs. semi-automatic), 2) skill (which includes safety), and 3) intent. We already have very effective laws concerning rate of fire, don’t need any more. Background checks and similar rules are supposed to weed out those of ill-intent. What we really need are regulations that require training and safety instruction for gun ownership… not laws that single out firearms based on how they ‘look’ or who else uses them.
So, that takes care of Mr. Zumbo’s comments, what about the article in general? Typical Washington Post “editorial disguised as article” shenanigans. Mr. Zumbo made a comment directly against the interests of his supporters (Remington) and employers (Outdoor magazine), they are perfectly justified in dropping their support of him… its their dime. To criticize the “gun lobby” or the NRA for “turning their backs” on Jim Zumbo despite his “numerous apologies” is quite disingenuous. How many articles in the Post support forgiveness for Mel Gibson… who was drunk, apologized profusely, and did NOT make “anti-Semitic” remarks (he made stupid, ill informed, and inaccurate remarks about the Jewish people… but they were hardly “anti-Semitic”)? Anyway, just as the Dixie chicks learned when they criticized a political figure the majority of their fan base supports… your comments have consequences, and its not censorship unless its done by the government. Therefore, quit chapping the NRA and the others for reacting the way they did. I am sure the NRA’s opposition would react in a similar way.
Now that my rant is drawing to a close, I will share with you some interesting facts about firearms and firearm ownership:
1) More children in the U.S. die from drowning in backyard pools that from shootings (accidental or otherwise)… how come Paul Newman doesn’t have a weepy commercial about that? Studies that claim otherwise (9-14 gun-related child deaths per day, typically) count everyone under the age of 24 , and the majority of those died during the commission of a crime.
2) Firearms are used three to five times more often to stop crimes than to commit them.
3) Over a period of years, Britain gradually slid down the “slippery slope” of “gun control”, ending with outlawing all firearms in 1998. On OCT 13, 2002, London’s Sunday Times reported that “Britain’s murder rate has risen to its highest level since records began 100 years ago.”