...and the expected bloodbath ensues. The Washington Post has just published an
interesting article on the colossal implosion of big-game hunter
Jim Zumbo's career. In brief, Zumbo, a 40+ year NRA member, hunting writer, host of a popular TV program on the Outdoor Channel, etc. wrote a couple of posts calling into question "long range shooting" and the use of assault weapons in hunting (i.e. prairie dogs). Since this began two weeks ago or so, he has "resigned" his position as hunting editor for Outdoor Life (for whom he had written for 42 years), been released from his long-time relationship with Remington, had his highly rated hunting program on the Outdoor Channel put "in hiatus", etc. Personally, I am less interested in this chain of events as a "second amendment" issue as I am from the First Amendment side, the "chilling effect" this will have on rational debate and the matter of the power of unintended consequences.
While many people seem to be writing (or ranting) about this without, apparently, reading what he wrote, I thought I would post it here (N.B. the original posts, on his blog at Outdoor Life, have been removed...an interesting ancillary issue (that is, the "loss" of significant writings when they inflame unusual passions)). The following are the two posts that appear to have some folks worked into a lather:
While at the SHOT Show recently, I ran into a guy who complained that too many hunters were taking excessively long shots. He’s an outfitter, and witnessed plenty of people shooting at elk at distances greater than 350 yards. He suggested that that was too far, primary because the majority of those hunters had no clue of ballistics. Most were “Hail Mary” shots. I agree. We read about people making 500 yard shots and more, and that, to me, is ridiculous.
Then at the SCI convention last week, I talked to a guy who bragged that his custom gun kills deer out at 800 yards and better. To each his own, I suppose, but that isn’t hunting. It’s shooting. And I don’t care how great a marksman you are. The risk of wounding an animal at extremely long ranges is high, and where’s the sportsmanship, the ethics, the satisfaction of taking outrageously long shots? I understand there’s a group in PA that shoots deer at 1,000 yards and more. More power to them. Just don’t ask me to support that kind of “hunting.”
(J. Zumbo, 2/6)
As I write this, I’m hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming with Eddie Stevenson, PR Manager for Remington Arms, Greg Dennison, who is senior research engineer for Remington, and several writers. We’re testing Remington’s brand new .17 cal Spitfire bullet on coyotes.
I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.
I call them “assault” rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I’ll go so far as to call them “terrorist” rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are “tackdrivers.”
Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I’ve always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don’t use assault rifles. We’ve always been proud of our “sporting firearms.”
This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don’t need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let’s divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods.
(J. Zumbo, 2/16)
So it appears that, as a professional hunter, he questions the increasing use of "long range" shots ("shooting" vs "hunting") and the use of "AR and AK" rifles (auto and semi-auto "assault weapons") in hunting (specifically referencing prairie dogs). He *might* have gotten away with this as mere opinion *except* that in his post, he distinguished between "sporting firearms" and "'terrorist' rifles". This alone appears to have worked *many* people into a frothing lather (I'm not posting links to the apparently endless blog posts ranting about Zumbo's "betrayal"...google his name and pretty much the first 45,000 returns are in the "Zumbo=Dumbo" vein).
I will preface by saying that I grew up in rural Maine, have hunted, support the right to hunt (by bow, gun or slingshot) and, in general, support 2nd amendment (which, for those who forget, reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.") [N.B. While I do support the 2nd Amend., am I the only one who reads "well regulated" with as much weight as "shall not be infringed"?] I am not interested in discussing what Zumbo said, per se, but rather the reaction and broader implications. Frankly, nearly every "serious" hunter I know would agree with most of what he said...long range shots are flaky and arguably more dangerous and "hunting" with AR/AK rifles, while fun, lacks a certain amount of "sportsmanship." He did not say that such rifles should be banned, per se, simply that they should be banned "from the prairies and woods." By all means, go to a machine gun shoot (Maine had a great event up in Dover-Foxcroft, named for the inventor of the first portable fully automatic machine gun,
Hiram Maxim (who also invented the mousetrap), though I do not know if it is still being held)...but blowing away prairie dogs with an AK-47 does seem to lack a bit of...er...challenge.
The WP appears to have hit on the substantive issue. What is important is not the pros and cons of using a
.50-caliber sniper rifle to hunt deer (or, as it were, collect deer parts) or AKs on prairie dogs, it *is* an issue of not allowing any division or distinction between hunting rifles and shotguns and assault weapons. The NRA and similar gun-rights groups are adamant in pushing the slipper-slope argument that any regulation of assault weapons, sniper rifles, armor piercing ammunition, etc., etc. will inexorably lead to regulation of hunting weapons (ignoring that whole "well regulated" aspect of the amendment). The point they make is that most of the *money* comes from hunters while most of the "feet on the street" passionate advocacy comes from assault weapon owners and that the NRA effectively endorsed this as the salient point by showing that, "the Zumbo affair shows there is "no chance" that a "divide and conquer propaganda strategy" could ever succeed."
Zumbo apologized profusely, but the lifelong hunter and hunting rights advocate was promptly burned in effigy. Granted, the "terrorist" reference was semantically poorly chosen...but his overarching points are at least colorable, if not correct. However, in the
editor's note regarding his "resignation," Todd Smith of Outdoor Life states, "We respect Mr. Zumbo's First Amendment right to free speech, and we acknowledge his subsequent apology and admission of error." This is immediately followed with,
However, Outdoor Life has always been, and will always be, a steadfast supporter of all aspects of the shooting sports and our Second Amendment rights, which do not make distinctions based on the appearance of the firearms we choose to own, shoot or hunt with.
The "admission of error", one hopes, was that of speaking a thought out loud and offending the "all or nothing" approach of the NRA, et al (and, for that matter, they clearly do *not* respect his right of free speech, or they would defend his speech on those grounds). The implications, of course, are clear. There can not be a rational discussion of the pros and cons of any of these issues. You either support the completely unfettered "right to bear arms" or you are an enemy to be attacked and pilloried in any and all ways possible. I find this really troubling.
It appears there can be no rational voices in this matter at all. On the "right", you get thrown out of the club if you support any regulation of anything that goes "bang", on the "left" you get ousted if you acknowledge that hunting...and shooting...is fun, constitutionally protected and generally not such a bad thing. As Yeats said, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity." I think the opinion of a renowned and articulate hunter would be of value in this debate. I bet we don't hear any in the near-term (or at least none not towing the party line of "no regulation is acceptable").
Personally, I am fond of that term "well regulated" and just can't seem to get myself worked up on one side or the other (lacking all conviction). There are firearms that are appropriate for hunting...and there are firearms that are appropriate for target shooting. I am not certain it is unreasonable to have "time and place" restrictions on semi/automatic weapons, sniper rifles, flamethrowers, rocket launchers and such things. There is a rationality issue at play here...in Maine, I am not able to own a
Black Cat firecracker, but there is no problem with my owning a .50 caliber weapon with an effective range of 7,500 yards (yes, 4 miles) and the ability to punch through an inch of vehicle armor or 3/4 of an inch of bullet-resistant glass (there are purportedly over 20,000 of these firearms in private hands in the US). Now there is not doubt that big guns are fun...but does one really "need" one. The same argument applies to ARs and AKs. Unfortunately, no one seems able/willing to discuss these issues in anything but extremes...and well all end up suffering for it.
The worst aspect of the Zumbo affair is that it absolutely confirms the worst fears of "rational voices" and reduces the "debate" over gun control to a battle of zealots. Unfortunately, this appears to be an increasingly common problem in this country, from the President's, "If you don't support me, you support Terrorism" stance to the arguments around Intelligent Design (or the lack thereof) and Evolution. Personally, I'm tired of dogmatic arguments unsupportable by reason or logic. I'm tired of the increasingly anti-intellectual sentiment so pervasive in this country. I'm tired of vapid talking heads on "news" programs telling me that if I'm not embracing the current Anna Nichole Smith pseudo-news event then I am "snob". I'm tired of a political environment where deep and/or long-term thinking is *actively* condemned and ridiculed. I am just tired.
It is a good thing
Carl Hiaasen has a new book out...I bet the twits in Nature Girl will get their's in the end..............
Labels: blogs, bookish, censorship, random bits, rantishness
