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
Re-read the above. This is the short cut to the end of shooting sports and firearms ownership.
I'm not fond of ARs either, and I do wish that crowd would tone it down a bit for their own good, and for the rest of us as well. I don't own a semi-auto rifle or shotgun. All of the long guns I use, rifle and shotgun, have two barrels, and I don't have much use for anything else.
So, you and I agree that ARs are "politically incorrect" for hunting today. What will it be tomorrow? It WILL be SOMETHING. When it becomes "politically incorrect" for sporting purposes, the sporting guns will be gone. When keeping a deadly weapon for self defense becomes "politically incorrect", the rest will be gone. That's how it went in England, and much of the rest of the world.
Here in the States, we haven't had any "rights" for a long time. It's all privileges now. We crossed that pass long ago, and are now on the slippery slope. How fast do you want to go on the trip to the bottom? The antis go one step at a time. Today it's assault rifles. As soon as that one is under their belt, they will immediately start on the next group. What will it be? Rem 1100s? "Assault" single action revolvers? Or maybe those horrible "assault" double barrel shotguns that can fire two devastating swarms of hot lead at one time (I saw print ads to almost exactly that effect in England some years ago)? Or the evil soft nose bullets that could only be wanted to murder schoolchildren more efficiently? Give them a "freebie" for the ones that you don't want, and the ride to the bottom will only be that much faster.
The shooting community is beleaguered. Zumbo is entitled to his opinions and freedom of speech. However, he made his living off of us for 42 years, and took money that he would never have received had his views been known to us. His words are already being used by Brady and others against us. Even if his mea culpa is sincere, it does not reverse his treason. He deserved to swing, and swing he has.
