I will surely anger many of you with my comments, but I find myself agreeing with most of Jim Zumbo's orginal statements.The assualt-type weapons look to me like they are designed to spew a lot of ammo at a target. I believe this is consistent with their original purpose as a military firearm. I have a hard time embracing this kind of weapon as a sporting arm. Please follow my thinking on this. I am not saying these guns should be outlawed, but I cannot understand a good sporting use for these guns. The kind of firepower they represent goes against the grain of my sporting upbringing.
I think the public views these guns as weapons designed to put a lot of lead on to a target. They associate these guns with the assault-type purposes that they were designed for. It is no accident that these guns are referred to as "assault weapons." My point is that by embracing this kind of firepower as a sporting arm, we may be cutting off our own noses in spite of ourselves. People running around in the woods dressed like Rambo and toting assualt weapons does not endear hunting to the general public and can easily contribute to just more land being locked away from hunters forever.
I believe that we have to remember that we need to be good ambassadors for our sport. Associating hunting with this kind of weapon will not help the sport of hunting.
Many of you will strongly disagree with me, but I hope you won't feel the urge to attack me as a decent person because I believe differently than you. I am still a hunter and a lover of our sport. I just think that these weapons do not serve our sport well. I had more respect for Jim Zumbo with his original position. I kind of feel his retraction looked like a "cave in" and I had a hard time following his reasoning for reversing his first statement. Being tired just seemed a little weak to me and not much of a support for his reversal.
Ed Pirie
West Topsham, Vermont
