Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Photo
Deer roaming in through the woods of Virginia (file)
The news from Colorado is now joined by a discussion of gun laws. Senator John McCain responded to a question Monday about having a gun law debate in the Senate:
Q: Reporter: Can you support some limits on guns and still support the second amendment because the NRA seems to suggest that you can't?
A: McCain: Again, somebody would have to prove that it would actually have a beneficial effect, some of the strictest gun laws in the country are in places where crime is at its worst.
As "The Last Word" staff worked on Friday night to gather information about the shooting at the Batman movie screening, I read reports from Colorado about the types of guns used in this crime. Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said four weapons were used in the attack: "Two 40-caliber Glock handguns, a Remington 870 single-barrel pump shotgun and a Smith & Wesson AR-15 assault-style rifle." As someone who grew up in a rural part of the southeastern United States, most of those sound pretty familiar with the exception of the AR-15 rifle.
From the age off about 10, as soon as the weather changed from summer to autumn and the leaves started to change, so did my sleep schedule as my father would wake me around 3:30 or 4:00 am to go hunting. I would slowly climb into camouflage coveralls and meet my dad at the gun cabinet in the den, where he would choose the appropriate guns for that mornings hunt: Semi-automatic 20-gauge shotguns for duck, goose and other bird hunting; rifles and a 12-gauge shotgun with buckshot for deer season. Pulling a military-style weapon out of the gun cabinet in the den just didn't happen.
The rifle used in Colorado was made by Smith & Wesson according to reports and thus is an AR-15 "style" rifle, as another company actually owns that name. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16 military assault rifle and was banned from 1994-2004 when the assault weapons ban expired. One of the arguments for the ban were the various attachments available for purchase for this gun like bayonets. I have never seen a bayonet on a bolt action hunting rifle.
In the 1980s and early '90s when I hunted with my father, the men he hunted with often talked about the laws concerning gun ownership and especially how to make certain that they were abiding by the law. There was a limit as to how many bullets each gun held and thus a limit to how many shots before you had to reload, three four or five as far I remember. I also remember we had no problem returning home with at least a few ducks, geese, or doves. One pull of the trigger, one shot from a shotgun, and usually at least one bird would go down. If you missed, it took just a second to pull the pump and put another shell in the chamber to fire again. Our chocolate lab did not want for ducks to retrieve in the cold November waters of eastern North Carolina.
The Aurora Police Chief says "these weapons can accommodate large ammunition clips." The AR-15 used in this attack had a "drum clip" attachment that could have carried more than 100 rounds and with that clip, the gun "could have fired 50 to 60 rounds in a minute, even if the rifle was considered semi-automatic, not automatic." Oates added "There were 3,000 rounds of ammunition for this rifle." 3000 rounds.
One of my most vivid memories of hunting was during middle school, very early on a school day. We climbed a deer stand before sunrise and watched over a field that had probably grown soybeans. About an hour later, a buck with small but legal antlers walked out from the woods, into a field and into his final moments. The deer was too far for me to take a shot at, I was armed with a shotgun. Its been a long time and I don't remember if my dad was carrying the Remington or the Winchester but I do remember it took him just one shot with his rifle for the deer to go down. It took just one shot across a field that was at least 50 yards.
Think about that. One shot from that rifle took down a deer weighing several hundred pounds that likely was as far from us as half the length of a football field. In comparison the rifle used in the Colorado shootings had a drum magazine attachment that holds as many as 100 bullets. Attachments like that were also banned from 1994-2004.
It took my dad and me some time to climb down the tree and walk across that field. The deer was still alive when we got there. It was an awful sight, his eyes were wide open looking panicked or maybe shocked. I looked away as my father put him down and then we carried the carcass to the pickup truck and headed back to town. My dad dropped me off at school with the deer still in the truck bed, with enough time to change out of my camo coveralls before class. In all the time I hunted with my father, he was a loyal NRA member and I never heard him once complain that his rifle held too few bullets.
Leave a Comment:
My story is similar; I grew up in Wisconsin in a family that were BIG hunters, especially deer. I've hunted squirrels with a .22; rabbits with a 20 gauge, ducks and geese with a 16 gauge and a 12 gauge; and deer with a 12 gauge using slugs and a lever action 30-30. I never heard anybody in my family either COMPLAIN with the assault weapons ban was in place, or REJOICE when the NRA spearheaded its demise.
The truth is, contrary to what Brother Wayne at the NRA - and that doofus Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) would have people believe, talk around the hunting shack never sounded like this:
"Geez, you know; I'm thinkin' I should get myself an AR-15 with a 100 round drum clip for next season. You can never get off enough shots when you're aimin' at that big buck."
Right. I grew up in rugged country in Washington state, and nearly everyone had at least a rifle in the house. When my grandfather grew up, there was loaded rifle standing in the corner of the cabin. It was stupid not to, because deer at not just a source of free meat during the depression, they were pests that could destroy a good portion of your plantings in the space of a half hour.
A rifle is a tool like a bone saw used for butchering meat or a chain saw for clearing trees that have fallen into the field or across the road.
Then there were the yahoos from the city who had something to prove about how rugged, tough big men they are. They bring expensive chain saws into the forest to steal perfectly good lumber trees and haul it away as firewood for their homes. Watching how slowly they cut through wood, and the suicidal ways they are positioning themselves, you can see they haven't a clue what they are doing. The difference with these nuts with chain saws and those with guns are they are mostly only a menace to themselves, as they wander around with their mostly unused saws like erect male members.
This is not true for the wanabees who show up with guns. Going out the first day of hunting season is nuts. The idea seems to be- go out into the forest, get incredibly loaded and stumble around in the forest cementing a bond with your pals from work.
Then there are the guys who hunger for the feeling there is some portion of their lives where they are in control. These are the folks who can't put away the gun during off season- who buy thousands of rounds and go and squeeze off lots of shots in newly logged off areas. These yahoos go through an unbelievable amount of ammo in an afternoon. Pop pop pop pop endlessly. You won't think buying 3000 rounds is weird after encountering this kind of gun party. You'd think they'd get bored after a while. And it's just like the jerks from the city with their chain saws. It's insane how reckless they are, and I had the bullet holes in the side of my house to prove it. These are the guys who like to wave around fancy weapons that want to look as uber Rambo as possible. These are the guys who buy the 100 shot magazines, modify their guns for full auto, that scare the crap out of the local sheriff so much that they wouldn't even do anything until I showed them the bullet holes.
I don't blame the deputies- they are good guys. Most of these gun jerks are drunk and heavily armed, so it is safest to just leave them alone and blow off steam.
So I have described three types of gun owners here, and these sets do overlap:
They feel they have agency. These are the guys with the NRA stickers on their cars.
This has already become overlong but I don't think folks in the east understand this extra dimension. For them guns are for criminals, nuts or pathetic males proving their masculinity against Bambi. It doesn't much get close to where the gun enthusiasts' heads are at, and as long as that is the case, we'll keep talking past each other.
The key is to unlocking what is driving the madness of group 3. They profoundly feel a loss of agency in the world. In our church, the kind of guy who would go out and blow off a thousand rounds on a weekend throw themselves into service at their church. They are given responsibility. They feel power and worth in doing something positive. They gain respect. And when they are feeling like they are in control they'll let you know what's eating them. Their marriage is on the rocks and they think their wife is cheating on them. Their boss regularly takes a leak on their pantleg, but there's no way at their age they can get a job like the one they have, so they just have to shut up and take the humiliation in front of all their workmates.
The left simply doesn't offer a home for people to do service and feel empowered. There is no communal environment where a guy can talk. I am not saying they have to get religion, though I think service in a spiritual organization and the depth of psychological communication that can be achieved there is mostly unmatched by any other kind of organization. It could be the local chapter of the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo who go out in regalia to serve at the soup lines, or cleaning up pollution at a beach or marching for a ban on high capacity ammo clips in the MLK day parade.
Something that gives folks a sense of agency. Something productive to do with that pent up frustration. We just don't have that on the Left.
And it will continue to cripple us if we don't figure it out.
Military style rifles have been used for deer and antelope hunting especially throughout the post Civil War period, including the Lever Action .44 Caliber that John Wayne sported in his many Western Movies (the real gun that won the West). Post Spanish American War, the 30-40 Krag bolt action rifle was the battle rifle adopted by sportsmen, various rifles from World War II were modified in length of barrel and stock, including the German Mauser and the US Springfield...and after World War II semi-auto M1 Carbines using the not very potent .30 Carbine, and some Commonwealth (There will always be a Britain).303 Calber Bolt Actions from our allies to the North and across the Pond (million of them made in the US of A) found their way into sportsmen hands, as did the semi-auto M1 Garrand US battle rifle.
Lots of the Soviet Unions post colapse AK-47s and the SKS battle rifles found their way into the US Sportsmens hands, and they fire a .30 cal round that is remarkable ballistically similiar to our old and true deer round, the 30-30 Winchester, found in so many rural homes as the standard hunting weapon of choice for the hooved game. Sold with a 5 round clip (as are the AR-15s from post Vietnam era and post Iraq and present Afghanistan Wars), they are being used to hunt deer from the New England and Southeast USA to the Pacific Northwest, and the AR-15's little but potent round .223 Calber has become the caliber of choice for varmint hunting from ground hogs to coyottes, and used in antelope and deer hunting where long shots are necessary at usually running game.
There have been pleanty of American made semi-auto hunting rifles offered in a wide variety of calbers going back into the late 20th Century.
There has also been a long history of using the semi-auto pistols from our military as weapons of choice by both police and civilians, all lawfully, from the .45 ACP Colt to the 9mm Springfield and Berretta.
I'm not buying your thesis...it's not the tool O'Donnel, its the man using the tool that is the responsible party.
First, in my family, the goal is to show off the SKILL you use to bag a deer, not bagging the deer. Hell, I've struck and killed 5 deer driving a vehicle the 29 years I lived in Wisconsin. Killing a deer is no big deal; it's how you do it. Just like catch and release fishing is becoming popular with my family (especially now that you can prove bragging rights with a yardstick and an iPhone).
Some in the family are going to hunting deer with muskets; they think its both more fun and a bigger challenge. NO ONE USES A SEMI AUTOMATIC; it's either bolt or lever action. In my family you wouldn't want the ridicule for not being a real hunter; they'd say if you can't bring it down with one or two shots from a bolt or lever action, stay home with the kids.
As far as my opinion: anyone who uses anything more than a lever action 30-30 to hunt deer in Wisconsin is a wuss.....
NYchees- It's like that thing Barry Goldwater once said about hunting- any idiot who needs more than one shot for a deer has no business owning a gun. With modern scopes and rifles, that is much more true today than it was then.
Keith- I think you are right Mr. O'Donnell is not too familiar with attitudes towards guns common in the west and in rural ares. I went into a bit above (described in "group 1")- the people for whom a gun is simply a tool.
Let's be honest though. While this view is still common among ex military and folks who grew up in rural areas, hardly anyone nowdays thinks of their gun with the same emotional detachment they have for their table saw. Are you denying the status symbol of having a cool gun at the shooting range, or in the hunting party? What is weird to me is how far we have come from the common view when I grew up of the detached feeling towards guns as tools no different than how you'd feel towards a two headed axe. Get one if you need it, learn how to use it responsibly, and treat it with respect.
All of those norms are gone. Nowdays when I hear people talk about guns what I hear is guys that are highly emotional about firearms. It's weird and a little nuts.
John
When a hunter in New England, I used a simple Mossberg 500 12 ga shotgun on deer and turkey/pheasants/grouse/ducks with interchangeable barrels, and a Savage 22/20ga Over/Under combo small game getter, single shots in the rifle and shotgun barrels. .
For my time in the Pacific Nortwest I had that same Savege Campers Companion small game getter, and a Marlin Lever Action in .44 Remington Magnum for deer in the brushy growth. Didn't do any duck hunting out there. I had a Taurus .22 rimfire with a 4 in open sights barrel, and that accompanied me on camping and fishing trips, and was a potent grouse getter on the rock and pebble strewn banks of the steelhead and salmon streams and rivers. The .44 Rem Mag in the 20 inch Lever Action carbine was also a home defense weapon which I never needed, loaded with 10 rounds, about 4 more than one could get into a revolver, and more than one gets into a .45 ACP clip, and about what the standard semi-auto pistol gives in .380 ACP or .9mm. And much more potent and uselful at longer ranges.
I do have a .327 Federal Magnum Ruger Revolver as my house/trail gun, 3&1/4 in barrel, and a Taurus .32 H&R Magnum 2 in barrel revolver as my carry gun. I do a lot of range shooting with both, and the .22 Revolver also. The beauty about the .327 Mag and the .32 Mag is that they both will chamber the old Police round .32 S&W Long, that is low velocity, low energy, and ideal as a small game getter, especially in the .327. Mag Ruger which accompanies me on the trail. And the .327 also chambers the .32 H&R Mag, so I have a simplicity of ammo supply.
Nothing flashy there...just the basics.
If your lengthy list was motivated about concern that an assertion was being made about which general set of gun owner you fall into, I'd like to correct that misimpression. I wouldn't feel I had a bead on that unless I personally knew you for several years.
All I have ever handled are family guns and I have seldom had any need for them. This would be different if I lived somewhere like rural Alaska. I simply know that some people do, and that there are sensible gun control laws that would allow them to continue all those activities while making it much less conveniently easy to blow away babies and mothers with the efficiency of the Colorado shooter. O'Donnell's point on this last night was dead on. I further believe that the yahoos in the 3rd group I described deserve the contempt they receive among responsible gun owners, and from gun control advocates.
Regarding hunters, if I were a sportsman with skis I would definitely own several different types, and be careful to specify the particular details so that knowledgeable people would understand the tradeoffs I was making. Not to be unfair to you, it should be noted that to people unfamiliar with sport hunting, it's like talking to non skiers and telling them you have 5 sets of skis. They have no comprehension why, so you come off sounding obsessive. I suspect in your case it may simply be that you enjoy your hobby and have been careful to make specific choices. You may have some emotional attachment to some of them, but no different than the attachment a skier has to a particular set of skis- associated with victories in particular events and so on.
Thanks for posting. You have provided very important information which many people ignore.
As a Freshman in Amundsen High School in Chicago in 1948, I joined the Reserved Officer Training Corps (ROTC) instead of taking gym classes with the jocks. I was not an athlete nor a swimmer so the program did nothing but hinder my high school plans.
As an ROTC cadet, we had been trained by two marvelously training military non-coms, Sgt. Looper and Sgt. Majewski. Both had served time in the World War II era and were very much military! We were instructed in the weaponry of the times and were trained on the 22-Caliber Rifle and the newly ordained M-I Rifle which held a clip of 40-Caliber ammunition of 18 rounds. We were trained in medical treatment of rifle wounds inflicted upon enemies and our own military personnel. We were taught respect for the instruments of war, their damage, how to repair their inflicted damage and to save lives rather expend them. The weapons were always under lock and key when not authorized to be used. And Security was of the First Order!
Following high school, I attended DePaul University and there too, became a member of the ROTC University program. There too we were instructed on weaponry and its proper uses during conflict either domestic or foreign. And all the time, we were only allowed access to the weapons under strictest security and authorization.
After my degree confirmation with a Bachelors Degree in Biology, I became a member of the auster U.S. Military by conscription. I was inducted into the U.S. Army Corps and had to take an oath of office to:"...solemly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of (a soldier in the service unit I was inducted into)and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constititution of the United States from domestic and foreign 'perpetrators'".
That oath of office I had to take for every federal, state and local public office I ever held since being a member of the military of the U.S.
My questions are:
Why is not military or domestic sharing of responsibility for protecting the Constitution EVERYONE'S duty to country anymore?
Why would this person who perpetrated this crime on movie goers as well as others at Virginia Tech, Univerisity of Texas, Ft. Hood, TX, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and New Orleans be held to the same standards of Protecting the Constititution and its benefactors, You and Me, from endangerment and possible foreign and domestic inclinations?
Why are not the three branches of Federal Government standing up for protection of the Constitution and its protectors in making or enforcing gun possession laws which is their sworn duty as it was mine and others who have taken the "solemn pledge"?
Dr. Justin F. Marino
Casa Grande, AZ
oniram51@hotmail.com
Being European, the whole gun debate blows my mind. I live in NYC and I lived in Europe for over 30 years, and this sacrality of gun ownership in the US is something as hard to understand as perhaps the Higgs boson. Guns and death penalty are perhaps the two biggest cultural gaps between the two continents (actually, there's Health Insurance too, but that would open another bag of worms). From what I understand, nobody wants to abolish gun ownership rights. It's just about how much it should be regulated. But despite that, people who stand with the NRA talk about owning a gun as if it was some kind of absolute right granted by God himself. A gun. An object. Owning an inanimate object. Why does the same thing not happen with cars for example? The similarities are there. More people die in car accidents than by gun shots (I didn't check but my gut instinct tells me so). You can argue that "cars don't kill. Drivers kill". But I don't see extremists wanting no regulations about driving, wanting to abolish the need of driving licenses or the minimum age. Or wanting to abolish speed limits. There is something suspicious about politicians who just reject any kind of regulation. It HAS to be about money and lobbyists paying them loads of money. But for some reason, it's the elephant in the room. The irony in all this is that probably Republicans and the NRA are right: guns are not the problem. What they fail to understand though is what the real problem is: lobbying (which, in Europe, is illegal by the way).
The present Administrtion's muscling through legilation and regulations that call for increased fleet gas milage from our automakers products means that lighter and lighter cars with less steel and more plastic are coming out of our factories, and the statistic are there as to the increased deaths and catastrophic injuries being experienced by our citizenry. If reelected, this myopic insistance on cutting the use of fossil fuels in this country at all costs by an ideologically based federal govenment will inevitable be killing five times the number of individuals that die by intentional or accidental use of guns.
Concentrate on getting the illegal guns out of the hand of criminals. 1,300+ gun incidents in Chicago alone in the past year, and they are dying by the the scores in gun shootings every month in that hometown of Barrack Hussein Obama. Use stop and search if necessary..and stop the boo hooing about racial and ethnic profiling and violations of civil rights as is going on in NYC now as they attempt to keep the gun violence from turning their city into Obama's Chicago. And concentrate on a first line of defense against the mentally ill also. And let's drive better, safer cars and light trucks, not lighter cars and trucks, and possibly fueled with propane gasoline as our neighbors in Canada do, even with all their oil riches (which this ideologically bound administration is barring from being piped down to our refineries).
Why the need the bring the President into this debate. It is an issue that both sides will not every confront, because there is to much money. One other question, why the need to list the President's name as you did, the city he previously lived in as "his city". You really should admit you are a racist, you would feel better about yourself. As long as this country continues to not to admit that a country founded by immigrants is racist by nature and with the papers of the "founding fathers" to soliditify this belief this country will continue in a downward spiral. But you know it is still the best country in world. This is what we minorities will always believe/know/love about this country.
The second amendment is not about firearms for sport; it is about combat. I have owned guns in the past for sport (taught at YMCA camp) and will do so again (when I retire to the Rockies). In between I was trained to fight a war although I see no need too here.
However if you want to know why I maintain the right to keep and bear arms, I have two words: Michelle Bachmann. As long as her ilk can be elected to congress, I will not feel safe without the means of last resort. Just ask the folks in Syria.
I also note that guns are not the weapon of choice by mass murderers around the world. Bombs are much more deadly.
Peace y'all, please!