Jim Zumbo's comments about "Terrorist Rifles"

[TGO David]

This is really making the rounds on the Internet right now. What do you guys think about it? I admit that I replied to the blog along with all of the others who are equally pissed off that "one of our own" has really stepped in it and given the anti-gun contingent invaluable ammo.

http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/2007/02/assault_rifles_.html

Assault Rifles For Hunters?

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 praries and woods.

[Guest GlocKingTN]

I dont see a damn thing wrong with using AR. As long as they are used right. Sounds to me like he is trying to be a dick, making up something to complain about.

[Guest db99wj]

I do think we should do everything we can to distance the name "assault rifle" and hunting or recreational shooting.

But we he is saying is crazy and ridiculous.

Oh crap, did you see that terrorist in the video with the hostage, they had a handgun to his head, these assault handguns need to be banned, Oh, did you see the other guy, he had a hammer, lets ban those assault hammers...

All that article is doing is giving, errr, ummm, ammo to the liberals that want gun control, they will use this stuff to pad their anti gun campaigns. They will say, one of there's is even saying this about them....

[TGO David]

Someone in Zumbo's blog referred to his bolt-action hunting rifles as suitable sniper tools. I wonder if that jarred any sense into him.

[Guest db99wj]

Did you notice the disclaimer?

UPDATE: As a point of clarification about this blog, it is important for everyone to realize that the opinions expressed here are Jim’s and not necessarily those of Outdoor Life.

I’ve been friends with Jim for many years and have shared countless great times with him talking about both hunting and guns. While I totally support Jim’s right to express his point of view—this is his blog after all—I don’t happen to agree with him on this matter.

His position that AR- and AK-style rifles don’t have a place among our “sporting arms†is not one that I personally, or Outdoor Life as a magazine, happens to share.

In the six years that I’ve worked at Outdoor Life we have never wavered in our support of our Second Amendment rights, which don’t, and shouldn’t, make a distinction about the cosmetic look of the guns that we choose take to our local gun clubs or into hunting camp.

That said, I don’t expect every other hunter and sportsman out there to have a set of opinions that moves in lockstep with mine. So while I don’t share Jim’s view on this, I also know that he is still the same wonderfully talented and good-natured person he was before this post went up. For those of you who have followed him for all or part of his more than thirty years at Outdoor Life, I would ask you to bear that in mind before damning him with personal attacks.

John B. Snow

Executive Editor

Outdoor Life

:angel::angel::angel:

[shaftbass]

Did anyone click the next blog entry?

http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/2007/02/i_was_wrong_big.html

Oops.

[shaftbass]

Holy balls, that guy has me pissed off. The Brady Campaign has picked up on his comments and has posted them: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=88508969&blogID=231738183&MyToken=70814c28-fef5-4d05-8c37-76113727327e

I hope that guy gets fired.

[Guest GlocKingTN]

I agree with this guy. He says it all in a nutshell if you ask me.

In regards to your blind enthusiasm regarding the segregation of firearm types, allow me to enlighten you.

First, regardless if a firearm is big, tall, short or small, they all accomplish a gaol:

THEY ALL USE THE RAPID RELEASE OF GAS TO PUSH A PIECE OF STEEL DOWN A BARREL IN ORDER TO HIT A TARGET. Mind you, whoever desides what that target to be, it is not up to the firearm. The last time I checked, firearms are not regarded as "intellegent beings".

Now, with that said. I AM ALL FOR GUN LAWS. MAKE GUN LAWS THAT MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR "criminals" TO OBTAIN FIREARMS.....please....do it until you are blue in the face; you have my support. But before you go off screaming blogs in support of bigots, look at what you are dealing with, and that is criminals.

What is a criminal? "Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse." That is not me, yet in the name of good you insist on making it harder for people like me to obtain guns. To make things simple, what I am asking you to do is LEAVE ME ALONE.

Quit making laws that make my love of collecting and shooting fireamrs hard. Being an American citizen like you, that is all I ask. Think before you introduce a bill for law that will make my life harder, that will ONLY PUNISH ME.

You people have to relize, the reason criminals are criminals is because THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE LAW!!!!!!!!!! up to, and including gun laws!!!!!!!!!!! The only people who care about laws are PEOPLE LIKE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND I AM NOT A CRIMINAL! I HAVE NEVER EVEN HAD A FLIPPING SPEEDING TICKET!

Quit being kids. Gun laws only effect those who abide buy them. Why would a muderer stop to consider one of the 20,000 gun laws in this country before he takes another life?

WHY? Is your "common sense gun law" more important than a human life to a killer?

Apparently not.

I admire what you do, I really do.

JUST LEAVE ME ALONE, and all of the rest of the MILLIONS of American citizens who LEGALLY obtain firearms for LEGAL and "legit" reasons; regardless of the type of weapon or if it has a scope or flash supressor on it!!!!!!!!!!!

CRIMINALS DO NOT CARE ABOUT ANYTHING BUT COMMITING CRIMES!

[towerclimber37]

Did you notice that Yankee bob, the second poster from that url is a New yorker that moved to tn?

if you go to his myspace page and read some of his blogs, you'll see what sort of person wants to limit your freedoms to protect yourself.

personally I think he's disgusting...

I guess I was trolling too..I told him if he liked our state so little, then he should feel free to move back home.

[Guest Len]

Well, I have a little free time this morning and thought I'd wade in. Probably a mistake, but what the heck, you only live once...

The original post, the response, the apology, the response to the apology, the side-forums, the posts on AR15.com, etc, lead me to offer the following:

1) Eveyone has a right to their own opinion.

2) People should THINK before they SPEAK!

3) It is really hard to have a rational debate about issues such as gun control in the current climate of mindless sophistry, media sensationalism, and political posturing.

4) Ignorance on both sides of the issue does not help! For example, anyone who wishes to ban or restrict a certain firearm simply because of its physical appearance (oh, its BLACK and has all this nasty equipment mounted all over it, so it should be banned!) is ignorant of the role and function of an AR-style rifle. On the other hand, claiming all liberals or all New Yorkers or whatever are anti-gun is also mis-informed.

5) It pays to know the other side's arguments. For example, there are still people on the anti-gun side that think an AR-15 is a fully automatic "assault rifle" such as the M16 or AK-47. Knowing this helps defuse the argument. I dont hear many hunters advocating the use of full automatic rifles and/or sub-machine guns to hunt with. (Not very sporting, harms the meat, etc.) On the other hand, I think it is reasonable to be concerned about "a bunch of drunk hunters in the woods with automatic weapons." I know I would not like that in my backyard. Its also reasonbale to point out that 99% of hunters are not like this, and most laws designed to deal with the 1% HURT THE 99%!

6) People who favor stronger gun control laws are scared. Scared people are going to react defensively and irrationally, and sponsor "feel good legislation" that does nothing. Deal with this by defusing their fear through education.

So, what do we do? We advocate for the strongest, most prohibitive gun control laws that are designed and actually perform the following function:

"Keep firearms out of the hands of criminals." If you can show me (and all law-abiding gun owners) that your legislation will do just that, then sign us up! We will then become the "GUN CONTROL FOR CRIMINALS LOBBY" and the other side will be the "GUN CONTROL FOR EVERYONE ELSE LOBBY."

I ask you, who's gonna win that fight?

Too bad that Zumbo's comments and the firestorm that followed played out the way it did. It COULD have been a way to show everyone that law-abiding gun owners are not what the other side argues us to be, and to point out we favor reasonable approaches to regulate hunting ("wildlife management") and criminal behavior.

Signing off now, gotta go to work.

-Len

[shaftbass]

Did anyone else notice the old perv. looking dude trying to hit on the young teenage girl on the Brady myspace page

Her profile says she is 16.

[Guest GlocKingTN]

I did see that reef. Nasty *******

[molonlabetn]

Well, I have a little free time this morning and thought I'd wade in. Probably a mistake, but what the heck, you only live once...

The original post, the response, the apology, the response to the apology, the side-forums, the posts on AR15.com, etc, lead me to offer the following:

1) Eveyone has a right to their own opinion.

2) People should THINK before they SPEAK!

3) It is really hard to have a rational debate about issues such as gun control in the current climate of mindless sophistry, media sensationalism, and political posturing.

4) Ignorance on both sides of the issue does not help! For example, anyone who wishes to ban or restrict a certain firearm simply because of its physical appearance (oh, its BLACK and has all this nasty equipment mounted all over it, so it should be banned!) is ignorant of the role and function of an AR-style rifle. On the other hand, claiming all liberals or all New Yorkers or whatever are anti-gun is also mis-informed.

5) It pays to know the other side's arguments. For example, there are still people on the anti-gun side that think an AR-15 is a fully automatic "assault rifle" such as the M16 or AK-47. Knowing this helps defuse the argument. I dont hear many hunters advocating the use of full automatic rifles and/or sub-machine guns to hunt with. (Not very sporting, harms the meat, etc.) On the other hand, I think it is reasonable to be concerned about "a bunch of drunk hunters in the woods with automatic weapons." I know I would not like that in my backyard. Its also reasonbale to point out that 99% of hunters are not like this, and most laws designed to deal with the 1% HURT THE 99%!

6) People who favor stronger gun control laws are scared. Scared people are going to react defensively and irrationally, and sponsor "feel good legislation" that does nothing. Deal with this by defusing their fear through education.

So, what do we do? We advocate for the strongest, most prohibitive gun control laws that are designed and actually perform the following function:

"Keep firearms out of the hands of criminals." If you can show me (and all law-abiding gun owners) that your legislation will do just that, then sign us up! We will then become the "GUN CONTROL FOR CRIMINALS LOBBY" and the other side will be the "GUN CONTROL FOR EVERYONE ELSE LOBBY."

I ask you, who's gonna win that fight?

Too bad that Zumbo's comments and the firestorm that followed played out the way it did. It COULD have been a way to show everyone that law-abiding gun owners are not what the other side argues us to be, and to point out we favor reasonable approaches to regulate hunting ("wildlife management") and criminal behavior.

Signing off now, gotta go to work.

-Len

I'd be far more inclined to support 'Criminal Control Laws'... and do away with any and all forms of 'Gun Control', regardless of who they were aimed at. That may have been what you meant, I just prefer to not vilify guns as any part of a crime problem by suggesting that any form of 'Gun Control' is reasonable.

If all laws pertaining to guns were repealed, and the laws regarding criminal behavior were actually enforced... and enforced strictly... Violent crimes, such as murder (regardless of the tools used), rape, and robbery would plummet. This is simply because the surplus population of dirt-bags would be reduced through attrition.

Fewer guns doesn't equal less crime,

Fewer criminals does.

Back on-topic, IMHO Zumbo is through. He knows it, and noone in the industry will touch him for a several years. He might as well go join the Brady Campaign.

Kudos to Remington for dropping him like a hot-potato. That simple act will affect a several of my shotgun and bolt-action buying decisions in their favor.

[Guest Old Chief]

I read in another forum that Remington is cutting him loose.

[Guest db99wj]

Wow, how long did it take for a 42 year career come to a screeching halt? Looks like within 3 days in today's world of internet.

[shaftbass]

Well they've deleted both posts

[TGO David]

Well they've deleted both posts

I would imagine due to the sheer server load that they were causing. When I tried to visit the blog entries earlier, it took several minutes just to download all of the comments. As an admin myself, I would have likely pulled them yesterday for that very reason.

[shaftbass]

http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/

Translation: He's been ****canned.

[TGO David]

http://outdoorlife.blogs.com/zumbo/

Translation: He's been ****canned.

Outdoor Life has always been, and will always be, a steadfast supporter of our Second Amendment rights, which do not make distinctions based on the looks of the firearms we choose to own, shoot and take hunting.

I bet he thinks twice before posting any garbage like this again.

[Guest db99wj]

This quote alone was in everything Outdoorlife said.

Outdoor Life has always been, and will always be, a steadfast supporter of our Second Amendment rights, which do not make distinctions based on the looks of the firearms we choose to own, shoot and take hunting.

This is them, distancing themselves from him.

[Guest Len]

molonlabetn:

I think we are in complete agreement, and I see the utility of the term "criminal control laws" vs "gun control laws."

Thanks for being clearer than I was.

-L

[JohnC]

My God what an ignorant ass this guy is! He should be fired on the spot for what he wrote.

Since when has the AR15 ever been used as a terrorist weapon on US soil?Bombs and fuled up jumbo jets, yes, but no AR15 that I recall.

And you can't lump the average criminal robbing a bank in to the "terrorist" title either. I love how they like to do that.

A bank robber is a bank robber... Gang member is a gang member.... a terrorist is a terrorist, so you get my drift here.

Guns don't kill or terrorize, people do! And no matter what, if they want to kill they will find a way!

[Guest Archimedes]

Hmmm...

Anybody remember Jimmy the Greek?

lol

One moronic comment and that's all she wrote.

You have to feel a little sorry for the guy....dontcha?

~Archi

[Marswolf]

I think Zumbo did what liberals do. He believed in what he wrote, rather than think it out to its logical consequences.

I think he was tired and didn't think out his blog. OTOH, I suspect that what he wrote is exactly how he feels about "assault weapons." This may be his first time to write it, but I'll bet his acquaintances and friends have know his view for a long time. He sees them as only good for shooting people.

Even if that was true, that doesn't make them a terrorist weapon. Guns that kill people can also be used to protect people. Self protection is a perfectly legitimate use for a gun, whether a pistol or an AR. And a mean looking rifle can be used to take game, whether the hunting snobs like them or not.

[Guest 0down]

I don't remember anything in the second amendment about hunting. I tend to key on "the right of the people" and "shall not be infringed". That being said, the fact that many people are using these guns for hunting only shows how versatile these guns are.

With this guy's logic, how long would it be before all bolt action rifles are "sniper" rifles?

"We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern."

I have never been scared by anyone with an ar-15, the two legged predators I worry about have old 25 autos or kitchen knives.