Two examples today of old timers who don’t understand the changes in the shooting culture. One is here, in a letter to the editor calling for more restrictions on “assault rifles.” Even more disappointing that he apparently realizes these are just ordinary semi-automatics, yet somehow still thinks they are more dangerous than, say, this.
Then this more lenthy article from an old man who doesn’t get it:
I don’t understand the allure of these weapons. I once shot a deer at 300 yards with a 1935 bolt action Remington 30-06. Not a bad shot for a seasonal shooter. I am an advocate of wildlife management by granting State Licenses and state regulation of hunting seasons. We ran all of the predators off so now we have to manage the deer population. It is what it is – I am not making any judgement about what was done before – only about what needs be done now.
Did you think the same thing when high power shooters were shooting these, or these? Or are those OK because they don’t look scary because there’s no polymers or pistol grips? It’s time for guys like this to come down off their high horses and understand something: people get into shooting all kinds of different ways, and go in all kinds of different directions with the hobby. That’s a good thing, because it’s numbers that allow him to keep going afield, and keep competitiors on the line at matches. I don’t care if someone only has an AR-15 to take it out to a public range every once in a while and plink. That used to be me, in fact. It is a lot of us.
Like I said in comments to that second link, where does that guy get off thinking he’s NOT an extreme gun owner himself with all those evil high-powered sniper rifles capable of killing a man from a whole 1/3 of a mile away?
The bad guns are the guns that aren’t like the ones he shoots. Rights for Me, not for thee!
Also I’m wondering what he thinks his .30-06 would do to a bullet proof vest.
Maybe he needs to turn in his “Cop-Killer” “Vest Buster” “Big Boomer”
Also I always thought the blocks back in the 70s were heavier than the aluminum ones we have today. Odd that even some REALLY warm FMJ .357 Handloads won’t really do a lot to a crappy Dodge inline 4…..
Ahhh Ignorance!
The funny thing is that his 30-06 round was clipping Germans and Japs long before the .223 and 7.62 X 39! The bigotry and short-sightedness of some gun owners astounds me. With “friends” like these who needs enemies?!
I think with the second guy, you have someone who does not value gun ownership outside of wildlife conservation. He was looking through the eyes of someone who viewed the reason to own guns as hunting. (Of course, I also laughed at how he thought tattoos were a sign someone has been in prison.)
Bitter:
Don’t forget, the Bad Guys drove Muscle Cars!
I think in both cases you have a pair of hunters who are just, quite honestly, anti-gun. They are in favor of their gun rights, and that’s about it. If people ever started to misuse deer guns, they’d accept all kinds of regulations.
Remember everybody, John Rosenthal is a gun owner.
Some of the biggest anti-gun bigots own guns themselves.
They just never think that someday their prefered gun will be banned. We just need to ban these dangerous pistols, assault rifles etc..
I suspect many of this type of gun owner are those that are hostile to new shooters and especially women shooters.
Instead of Fudd’s, we should call the GOINO’s: Gun Owners In Name Only.
So, do you suggest that the quantity and easy availability of guns that are specifically intended today for assault has no bearing on the crime rate, the number of school shootings, the gang violence in most cities, etc.? I understand that these are complex social problems, but do you assert that there is NO correlation between our current gun policy and regulation and those events? If you are suggesting that, then I have to say that I believe you are mistaken. If you are not, then I would be interested in your ideas, as a gun owner and advocate, about how to address those issues.
Thank you.
“So, do you suggest that the quantity and easy availability of guns that are specifically intended today for assault has no bearing on the crime rate”
Nope. No bearing whatsoever on the crime rate.
If it did, then Vermont and Alaska, which have virtually no gun laws, would have high crime rates.
If it did, the crime rate would have been higher in the 50’s when guns were more readily available with little to no government regulation.
The guns cause crime meme is a canard that the media has been force feeding this country for the last 50 years. It’s a lazy man’s approach to complex problems that defy a simplistic(ban guns) solution.
I don’t have any ideas about how to address them through gun policy, because I don’t believe there’s any rational gun policy that will work. We’ve seen these things happen in Germany several times, in Australia, in Finland, in Canada, in the UK, all of which have far more strict laws than we have here.
I think you have to look at different aspects of the culture to find an answer, and I’m not sure there is one. I think the wall-to-wall media coverage of these killers has a lot to do with driving the violent fantasies of a lot of these losers, and offers them a way out of their crappy pathetic lives that will give them their 15 minutes, even if they have to die in the process.
Since I don’t advocate restricting the media, it falls on them, I think to not provide infamy to the killers. These events should certainly be covered, but the media would help society at large if they quickly moved on, and didn’t focus to such a large degree on the murderers.
But stories about deranged killers sells newspapers, and gets people to watch news programs. So I doubt that the media is going to voluntarily not cover these things the way they do.
Standard old-school Fudd.
Completely unaware that hunters are in the minority as far as gun owners go.
Most gun owners these days don’t have hunting permits.
easy availability of guns
So just how easy is it to get a gun now as compared to, say, 1966. (Hint: A fat lot HARDER now.)
I can’t tell WHAT this person thinks he wants. To please people, perhaps.
Sebastian said:
If people ever started to misuse deer guns, they’d accept all kinds of regulations.
Oops, there already misusing “deer guns”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/29/nursing.home.shooting/index.html
JK Sebastian, I know what you meant.
This really troubles me, that people are so short sighted.
Today’s hunting rifles are tomorrows “assault weapons”. The list of “bad” guns will continually expand. For example, DC branded any gun with a magazine capacity over 10 rounds (IIRC) a machine gun. Ohio states that any gun using a magazine of over 32 rounds (IIRC) a machine gun. CA either did or talked about lumping pump shotguns into the “assault weapon” category.
M1’s, M1A’s, and SKS’s were not on the original AWB list, but now are on the proposed ban list.
Once “assault weapons” are banned (with every semi-auto eventually being pushed into that category), it’ll be time to go after sniper rifles – which will include pretty much everything else.
“So, do you suggest that the quantity and easy availability of guns that are specifically intended today for assault has no bearing on the crime rate, the number of school shootings, the gang violence in most cities, etc.? ”
Well, gun ownership is at an all time high and murder is at its lowest rate in 40 or more years (according to the FBI).
You do the math.
To Concerned a very good article about who commits 90% of murders..
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Gun-control-restricts-those-least-likely-to-commit-violent-crimes–42507652.html
Abou this post. This is typical of a lot of old timers FUDDS who get shocked at the new rifles used for shootimg and dislike the new guns since they are “NEW” to him. What he needs is some generous person to take him shooting with the new rifles like Nugent did to Zumbo.
His attitude is exactly like Zumbo who had no problem with his expensive hunting rifles but saw nothing he liked about the EBR.
My rifles are fine for me but your rifles are not good for thee.
True bigotry and narrow minded.
.
Started typing a comment and lost it some how. So here the gist of it. We hunt, we have handguns and all forms of the evil rifles he talks about. My father-in-law owns a large farm, and hunts, and also carrys a gun for of his protection of his livestock (there are a few bears and the occasional couger but seeing either one of those is unlikly it’s the coyotes and dogs thats the problem) and he in his 60tys. He belives in gun rights for all as is every gun owner I know around here. And he thinks my sks is not a scary high-powered gun. My guess is oldtimer is from north Mo. He’s sure not from southwestern rual Mo. I know. Almost like he’s from somewhere outside a city. So I have a bit of culture shock when I read opinons like the old timers. What to do about it, I vote for gun rights for hunters, sportsmen and right to carry.
“Don’t forget, the Bad Guys drove Muscle Cars!”
He strikes me as someone who thinks “Anyone more macho that ME is a thug.”
It goes well with his (likely) beliefs that
1. anyone who drives slower than himself is an idiot and
2. everyone who drives faster is crazy!
Some people are afraid of their own weakness and blame it on the strong.
If these guys were bow hunters, they might complain of those new fangled evil assault cross bows too.
I wrote another post just for you folks at snowflakeinhell. ……….
http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/04/11/the-passion-of-gun-lovers-and-pit-bulls/