Tag: media

KevinLeave a comment

James, Arizona Wants You!.

James Lileks reports in today’s Bleat that the management of the Star Tribune has decided that his talents are best used not in writing a daily or even weekly humor column, but instead in covering “straight local news stories.” The news has draw a lot of blog attention.

Now, granted, James has himself strongly recommended that local newspapers do local coverage. Local, local, local. Section “A” should be local, and section “B” should be national and international, he has said. That does not mean that James’ talents are best utilized as a beat reporter. You wouldn’t expect the Miami Herald to put Dave Barry on assignment doing “straight local news stories,” would you?

James recently dropped his longstanding contract with Newhouse News Services because of the speed of today’s world. A piece that he wrote a week ago might no longer be relevant by the time Newhouse placed it. I have no doubt, however, that he will be receiving offers from other outlets for his services.

Which brings me to Arizona. On more than one occasion, James has made noises about moving to Arizona – the Prescott vicinity if I recall correctly. Apparently his wife’s family lives in the area.

C’mon down, James. We’d love to have you as a neighbor.

Dan of Jackalope Pursuivant concurs – with a link to a pertinent Lileks piece, and another link to another Arizona blogger who wants to make the invite official. Suggestion: Don’t forget to mention Jasper in that invite!

More Magical Thinking from Academia and the Media

KevinLeave a comment

It’s a double-shot! This piece from CNN is written by Tom Plate, former editor of the editorial pages of the Los Angeles Times and a professor of communication and policy studies at UCLA. Hat tip to Arms and the Law. Let us fisk:

Let’s lay down our right to bear arms

OK. The criminals go first, though.

Most days, it is not at all hard to feel proud to be an American. But on days such as this, it is very difficult.

The pain that the parents of the slain students feel hits deep into everyone’s hearts. At the University of California, Los Angeles, students are talking about little else. It is not that they feel especially vulnerable because they are students at a major university, as is Virginia Tech, but because they are (to be blunt) citizens of High Noon America.

“High Noon” is a famous film. The 1952 Western told the story of a town marshal (played by the superstar actor Gary Cooper) who is forced to eliminate a gang of killers by himself. They are eventually gunned down.

Yes, and if Gary Cooper’s character had laid down his right to bear arms, what would have been the outcome?

The use of guns is often the American technique of choice for all kinds of conflict resolution. Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines — along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly — the right to own guns. That’s an apples and oranges list if there ever was one.

Not so! They are all of a single philosophy. And thanks so much for admitting that there’s a (significant) contingent of people out there who are not proud – generally or otherwise – of that document.

Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much.

While I and many like me believe that the “gun part” is the crowning achievement of a document that established a government designed to protect the rights of individuals against the power of the State.

It’s all a matter of your worldview, I suppose.

Let me explain. Some misguided people will focus on the fact that the 23-year-old student who killed his classmates and others at Virginia Tech was ethnically Korean. This is one of those observations that’s 99.99 percent irrelevant. What are we to make of the fact that he is Korean? Ban Ki-moon is also Korean! Our brilliant new United Nations secretary general has not only never fired a gun, it looks like he may have just put together a peace formula for civil war-wracked Sudan — a formula that escaped his predecessor.

(Wishful thinking will get you nowhere. How much do you want to bet that “peaceful formula” fails? Bueller? Bueller?)

So let’s just disregard all the hoopla about the race of the student responsible for the slayings. These students were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a .22-caliber handgun.

See? Magical thinking. The guns loaded themselves, transported themselves from Cho’s apartment to the campus of VT, levitated into the air, and started killing. It’s not his fault – the guns did it!

We allow this guy to teach?

In the nineties, the Los Angeles Times courageously endorsed an all-but-complete ban on privately owned guns, in an effort to greatly reduce their availability.

“Courageously”? Why “courageously”? Because it cost them circulation?

By the time the series of editorials had concluded, the newspaper had received more angry letters and fiery faxes from the well-armed U.S. gun lobby than on any other issue during my privileged six-year tenure as the newspaper’s editorial page editor.

Ah, I see. Let me repeat Tam’s cogent response to the legacy media’s insistence that it was the “gun lobby” that was responsible for the Zumbo incident: “Poor Lefties; they’ve been playing on astroturf so long that they don’t know grassroots even when fed a mouthful of divot.”

But the paper, by the way, also received more supportive letters than on any other issue about which it editorialized during that era. The common sense of ordinary citizens told them that whatever Americans were and are good for, carrying around guns like costume jewelry was not on our Mature List of Notable Cultural Accomplishments.

Note: if you support gun rights (and the Constitution) you’re a tool of the “U.S. gun lobby.” If you don’t, (i.e., you agree with the author) you’re a common-sense “ordinary citizen.”

Just so we know where we stand.

Generally this is known as “elitism.”

“Guns don’t kill people,” goes the gun lobby’s absurd mantra. Far fewer guns in America would logically result in far fewer deaths from people pulling the trigger. The probability of the Virginia Tech gun massacre happening would have been greatly reduced if guns weren’t so easily available to ordinary citizens.

This is known as “circular logic.” If there were no guns, no gun crime would occur. Well, duh. The problem is, guns do exist and they’re not going to go away. Ask the Brits. Wishing won’t make it so. Neither will “magical thinking.”

Foreigners sometimes believe that celebrities in America are more often the targets of gun violence than the rest of us. Not true. Celebrity shootings just make better news stories, so perhaps they seem common. They’re not. All of us are targets because with so many guns swishing around our culture, no one is immune — not even us non-celebrities.

Wait, wait… We’re all targets? So we should all disarm?

Anybody see the disconnect here?

When the great pop composer and legendary member of the Beatles John Lennon was shot in 1980 in New York, many in the foreign press tabbed it a war on celebrities. Now, some in the media will declare a war on students or some-such. This is all misplaced. The correct target of our concern needs to be guns. America has more than it can possibly handle. How many can our society handle? My opinion is: as close to zero as possible.

Well, at least you’re honest about it.

Last month, I was robbed at 10 in the evening in the alley behind my home. As I was carrying groceries inside, a man with a gun approached me where my car was parked. The gun he carried featured one of those red-dot laser beams, which he pointed right at my head.

Because I’m anything but a James Bond type, I quickly complied with all of his requests. Perhaps because of my rapid response (it is called surrender), he chose not to shoot me; but he just as easily could have. What was to stop him?

Apparently not you. Nor the police.

A question: Do you think that guy will “lay down” his gun?

This occurred in Beverly Hills, a low-crime area dotted with upscale boutiques, restaurants and businesses — a city best known perhaps for its glamour and celebrity sightings.

Oh, and police tell me the armed robber definitely was not Korean. Not that I would have known one way or the other: Basically the only thing I saw or can remember was the gun, with the red dot, pointed right at my head.

A near-death experience does focus the mind. We need to get rid of our guns.

Ah, Beverly Hills! Well now I understand the elitism. Regardless this is just more magical thinking.

No, we need to get rid of the people like the man who robbed you. They need to be removed from the general population. Had that man had a knife, would you still have complied? What if he’d threatened you with a piece of pipe?

What we have here is someone steeped in the belief that he has a “right to feel safe.”

Being exposed to the fact that there is no right to be safe has apparently not altered his worldview one whit. No “never again” for Professor Plate! For him the response will always be “please don’t hurt me!” Did he feel proud to be an American that day?

Here’s a clue for you, Professor: You didn’t stop the robber. The cops didn’t stop the robber. So he’s free to do it again, and again, and again until someone does. And disarming the people who didn’t rob you isn’t going to help. Just as ensuring the victims of the VT massacre were disarmed didn’t help them.

Here’s another clue: You can’t have mine.

So now what?

KevinLeave a comment

Gun Banners Have to Use Emotion…

…because their arguments lose when facts and logic are used.

Hot Air reports that Michael Eisner wants to ban guns, and wants to do it by reaching the American public with emotional inspiration:

“I’ve always wanted to do position through story on the ridiculousness of having guns and automatic weapons in our society. And it’s been very much obviously in the news, sadly, sadly. But when you’re in a public company and you’re in Washington — I was just saying “Don’t fight the NRA” — or you’re in a big company where your major constituencies are middle Americans, and where you don’t own the company, you’re working for your shareholders, you’ve got to be very careful. And we pushed through same-sex health insurance, some very advanced things… But we never could do the kind of material that I can now do because nobody can tell me I can’t do it. So I think the solution is to get the public, in an emotional, story-driven way, behind the goal of an abolition of handguns and automatic weapons.

That’s how it worked in the UK, but first they had to greatly reduce the number of people who owned firearms through ever-more-restrictive acquisition and possession laws until the remaining gun owners had no political voice.

Not so here. And with the advent of the internet, we have access to each other, the opposition, and the organs of power. The Brady Campaign, for example, has learned this the hard way – finally instituting a registration scheme for commenters to their blog, but it doesn’t really help – it only helps keep out the nutters.

Joe Huffman has the best single-line logical refutation of gun-control – his “Just one question:”

Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to the average person made them safer?

In opposition to this, all Eisner and Company can do is play on the public’s emotion.

Sorry, Michael. It won’t work any more.

UPDATE: Jack Cluth of The People’s Republic of Seabrook seems to have fixated on me again. He links to this post with another emotion-ridden hand-wringing piece. My comment:

If we want to discuss mental illness, how about we discuss Jack Cluth’s denial, avoidance, and cognitive dissonance, not to mention “Bush Derangement Syndrome”?

“If one was so inclined, and I certainly am leaning in that direction, the blame for this massacre could well and fairly be placed squarely on the shoulders of Our Glorious and Benevolent Leader © . After all, he allowed the assault-weapons ban to expire.”

If you’ll recall, it’s the job of the legislature to write laws. The President only gets to veto or sign them. Bush said (and I believe him) that if a renewal had reached his desk, he’d have signed it. Either way, we’ll never know. Congress failed to do so. Blame Congress all you want, but you are not allowed your own set of facts.

“This argument is not about gun rights, nor should it be. No one is proposing the repeal of the Second Amendment.”

No? Salon’s Walter Shapiro is. He’s not alone. Just vastly outnumbered.

“The very obvious question, though, is why a weapon with a 15-round magazine is legal in the first place? Can an argument actually be made that this sort of thing is appropriate for “personal defense”? There really isn’t any excuse for a civilian to be in possession of a weapon with only one purpose: to kill people.”

This is one of my favorite arguments. The Glock 19 is perhaps the most popular sidearm of police departments around the country. When the “assault weapon ban” was in place, fifteen-round magazines were still being made, they just had “law enforcement use only” stamped on them. So, if the purpose of a fifteen-round magazine in a handgun has only one purpose – killing people – then why are our police departments so equipped? Why, indeed, are so many departments armed or arming with AR-15 rifles with 30-round magazines? Are there huge crowds somewhere that the police need to kill by “spray-firing from the hip”? I’m curious.

It’s your proposition, Jack – an “either/or” dichotomy. Either high-capacity magazines are exclusively for killing large numbers of people (and thus no one – even the police) need them, or you’re first premise is wrong.

Tell me, Jack: With no one attempting to stop Cho, what difference would it have made if he shot thirty times reloading only once, or if he had to change magazines twice? (Remember, ten round magazines were perfectly legal under the ban.) And how many is “enough”? When does the magazine capacity finally fall low enough that the “one purpose” of the firearm isn’t “to kill people”?

And, finally: “I’m sick to death of those who have spent the last few days opinionizing that, if only students and staff at Virginia Tech had been able to carry, this never would have happened.”

True to your nature, once you’ve picked a meme nothing will dissuade you from it. As I said in the previous peice, I haven’t read anywhere where people have declared that allowing concealed-carry on the VT campus would have prevented the attack. In fact, my precise statement, given in comment below was: “I do not now, nor ever have I advocated “a pistol on every hip.” In a free society, people get to choose, and most people (when free to choose) choose not to. That’s OK. But if 1% of the population on the campus of Virginia Tech had been armed, the death toll might have been lower.

“No matter what, it wouldn’t have been zero.”

Once again, you avoid addressing that statement, because it doesn’t fit your mental model. Like I said in the piece you linked to this time, when faced with actual facts, your arguments lose. Emotion is all you’ve got.

UPDATE, Case in point: Lawrence O’Donnell – completely wrong, but absolutely confident!

Déjà Vu

KevinLeave a comment

I’ve been following the Imus kerfuffle for the last couple of days, and I’m reminded of another such incident just recently that strikes me as very similar. Don Imus called a group of people something that they (and a lot of other people) found very objectionable. Outrage was felt. Sponsors pulled their sponsorship. Demands for firing were made.

Sounds like Jim Zumbo, doesn’t it?

Only Imus made a racial comment, and Zumbo insulted a subset of gun owners.

But Zumbo lost his job. Imus gets two weeks off.

I’m just sayin’.

Credit Where It’s Due

KevinLeave a comment

Instapundit links to a John Stossel piece on the “Fear-Industrial Complex” at Human Events.

Newsrooms are full of English majors who acknowledge that they are not good at math, but still rush to make confident pronouncements about a global-warming “crisis” and the coming of bird flu.

—

Here’s another example. What do you think is more dangerous, a house with a pool or a house with a gun? When, for “20/20,” I asked some kids, all said the house with the gun is more dangerous. I’m sure their parents would agree. Yet a child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool than in a gun accident.

Parents don’t know that partly because the media hate guns and gun accidents make bigger headlines. Ask yourself which incident would be more likely to be covered on TV.

Media exposure clouds our judgment about real-life odds. Of course, it doesn’t help that viewers are as ignorant about probability as reporters are.

I’m in complete agreement with Mr. Stossel on this point, and particularly when it comes to the firearm question, but credit where it’s due.

In June, 2005, after a string of drownings and near-drownings, my local morning paper the Arizona Daily (Red) Star – a reliably anti-gun paper – put this on the front page of the Sunday edition, above the fold:

I wrote about it then, and excerpted this from the story:

They’re pulled from backyard pools and bathtubs each year, tiny limp bodies, blue and not breathing.

A young life can vanish quickly under water. A survivor can endure a lifetime of disabilities. Either way, families are torn apart by an almost always preventable tragedy.

Standard summer companions in our desert climate, swimming pools can be deadlier for children than guns. A child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident than in gunplay, writes Steven D. Levitt, University of Chicago economics professor and best-selling author.

Levitt analyzed child deaths from residential swimming pools and guns and found one child under 10 drowns annually for every 11,000 pools. By comparison, one child under 10 each year is killed by a gun for every 1 million guns, according to his research, outlined in a new book “Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side to Everything,” which he co-wrote with journalist Stephen J. Dubner.

It was a pretty fair article. The exception that proves the rule?

KevinLeave a comment

“This is very unprofessional…”*

No, Ms. Hess, it’s the kind of professionalism your counterparts in the media are sorely lacking. You should not feel embarrassed for having these emotions, you should be outraged that we’re not seeing it from any other news outlets.

They’re too busy “getting distracted by the shiny political knife-fight.”

Via Pass the Ammo, UPI correspondent Pamela Hess on C-Span. Nine minutes of impassioned, important speech:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4ghwZjyxMI&w=425&h=350]

This, too:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvJSitI598c&w=425&h=350]

*(Alternate title: “This is not about the original case for war.”)

Voices

KevinLeave a comment

Early on in the Zumbo incident, Tam typed these tremendously insightful words:

Ten years ago, had his statement survived the editorial process and made it into print, we would have seen a handful of cherry-picked letters on the “Letters to the Editor” page of Outdoor life, and things would have pretty much proceeded along at status quo ante. Not now. Not today.

Another case in point, a recent (unsigned, natch) op-ed in the Winston-Salem Journal attempting to rally anti-gunrights forces in the wake of the death of an officer by gunshot. I’ll post the op-ed here in its entirety, and restrain myself from fisking it as it so richly deserves, because I have another point to make in this post:

Gun Glut

The Feb. 23 shooting death of Sgt. Howard Plouff of the Winston-Salem Police Department should make two things clear: There are too many handguns in circulation, and these weapons must be more tightly regulated.

We say “should” instead of “will,” because many gun advocates will continue to trot out the same old argument – that handguns aren’t the problem, people are.

That rings especially hollow after a good police officer and family man has just been shot to death.

No doubt, people would keep on killing under tighter handgun regulations, but the number of killings would almost certainly drop.

All indications are that Plouff’s killer used a handgun, just as so many other killers have.

The guns are as readily available as they are easily concealable. The man police charged Tuesday with killing Plouff, Winston-Salem State University student Keith Antoine Carter, got five permits to own a handgun in the last year, and he got four of those permits in a single month, the Journal reported Thursday. Carter is, of course, presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty, but does any one person need that many handguns?

There were way too many handguns in civilian hands when Plouff was shot in the face trying to help control a large and panicked crowd outside the Red Rooster nightclub. He and other officers had responded to the club to help Forsyth County deputies who were working there off-duty.

The people who started fighting in the bar were definitely in the wrong, but the bouncer who fired a shot into the air in an apparent attempt to end the fighting may well have played a major role in aggravating the violence.

After police arrived, more shots were fired from the crowd.

Carter wasn’t charged until a few days after the crime, but shortly after the shooting police seized eight handguns from the area – that’s just the ones they were able to find – and charged three men with carrying a concealed weapon.

Those are misdemeanor charges. They should be felonies.

There should be tighter regulations limiting the number of handguns a person can buy in a single month. And there should be stricter law enforcement of existing regulations, especially to crack down on those ignorant enough to carry handguns into packed bars.

We’re all for the Second Amendment, especially as it pertains to sporting arms, whether for uses such as target practice or hunting.

OK, I can’t resist fisking this, the obligatory “sporting use” bone thrown to the generic gun owner to prove to them that they don’t really intend to confiscate anything.

Go ahead. Pull my other leg.

But that does not mean that there should be no restrictions; most people, for example, have no good reason to own an assault rifle that is designed to kill a number of people quickly.

And this state, and this country, must face the fact that tighter regulations are needed on handguns – for Howard Plouff and all the other victims.

So, we have a cop killed by a guy who owns not one, not two, but at least five handguns that he’s had for up to a year, that (in North Carolina) he’s got to get a permit to purchase. He takes one of these guns someplace they’re not allowed by law, and he shoots a cop. But somehow we’re to believe that more laws would have prevented this heinous crime when the (anonymous) author proclaims that the cause of the problem is “too many handguns in circulation.” Oh, and “assault rifles.”

Where have I heard that before?

But, as Tam pointed out, ten years ago at most we’d have seen a few cherry-picked letters to the editor – in a week or six.

Not anymore! The Winston-Salem Journal has an online feedback function. There are four pages of (apparently unedited) responses. At my count the tally is 28 in support of the right to arms, three (weakly) in support of the editorial or in opposition to one of the other 28 comments. Samples:

It’s truly sad that you are using the death of a valiant officer to advance an anti constitutional stance. If you read the Federalist Papers, you will see the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting and everything to do defending liberty from tyranny. If you nibble away the rights of self defense who will guard you rights to print your opinion. – Smith357

Ban this, ban that. Do you know there is almost a total ban on civilian ownership of all guns in the UK? Have you read the latest from them? There is a gun crisis in the UK right now. Seems the criminals don’t pay attention the the laws over there. They keep getting guns. Guess what, if you obey the law, you have no defense against them. If you did defend yourself, even with fists, you can be arrested and prosecuted for assaulting the criminal. That’s what you want here obviously…. – Use your head

I am sick and tired of the news media jumping on every tragedy to try to take away more of the citizens rights. No amount of laws would have saved this fine officer.I knew him personally and at one time I was his supervisor at the PD. I feel you are doing him a disservice by trying to take away one of the the rights that he so proudly upheld in enforcing the constitution of the U.S. Your rights to a free press maybe next if you don’t take care. – sick and tired

I noticed that there is no name associated with this article, so we must assume that this is the official stance of the Journal? As a local deputy, I would like to point out that it is already illegal to carry a firearm into a place that serves alcohol. More gun control laws do nothing but make more people criminals, and by definition, criminals break the law. Sorry, gun control laws do not control guns, they only serve to make more people criminals. – Disappointed Deputy

“We’re all for the Second Amendment, especially as it pertains to sporting arms, whether for uses such as target practice or hunting.” And I’m all for the 1st Ammendment, especially where it pertains to writing about sports and entertainment. Now, writing unapproved articles about politics or editorials, I think there should be some restrictions on what you can say to the masses, or at least some government oversight. – sss

Ahhhh, I feel so much better now. We’re finding our voices, and using them.

I can’t help but wonder what the Journal‘s editorial board is thinking about the feedback policy.

(There’s also a link on the page directly to Technorati so you can see who else is commenting on it. Nobody’s shown at this time, but I wonder if Technorati will pick up this piece?)

Something Everyone Should Read

KevinLeave a comment

Michael S. Brown’s Sept. 2000 essay, The Radicalization of America’s Gun Culture. Excerpt:

Since the National Firearms Act was signed into law in 1934, the number of gun control laws at all levels of government have multiplied exponentially. So has the overall crime rate, which some argue is a direct result of gun control laws that discourage self-defense.

Although none of these laws reduced crime, each new law creates another way that a well intentioned gun owner can inadvertently end up in prison or ruined by legal costs. Some have been killed in raids by government agents. Much like laws passed to promote the failed war on drugs, each new gun law gives the police additional powers that threaten basic constitutional rights.

America’s lawful gun owners are painfully aware of these facts. Since gun laws don’t reduce crime, they wonder, what is the real purpose? This question has led to numerous theories that attempt to explain why the “ruling elite”, which includes the media and many politicians, would want to eliminate civilian gun ownership in America. American gun owners feel as if they are being slowly crushed. One writer recently described this decades-long campaign as a slow motion hate crime.

Frustration has been building in the gun culture for thirty years and has been accelerating with the faster pace of anti-gun attacks and the dramatic improvement in communications. Stories of outrageous persecution by government agencies now circulate like wildfire via the internet. Anti-gun bills introduced in any legislature are instantly made known to millions. Gun owners know the major players in the anti-gun lobby as well as they know the villains in their favorite movies.

Read the whole thing. It is quite relevant to the current situation.

The Wedge Goes In Deeper

KevinLeave a comment

Without further ado, Field & Stream‘s David “The Gun Nut” E. Petzal’s take on the Jim Zumbo fiasco:

In case you just emerged from a coma and have not heard, the shooting world is agog over a blog posted by Jim Zumbo, former contributing editor at Outdoor Life, over the weekend of February 17. In it, Jim stated that any semiauto rifle with an AR or AK prefix was a terrorist rifle, had no place in hunting, and should be outlawed for that purpose. Then, courtesy of the Internet and all its blogs and chatrooms, the roof fell in.

The speed with which Zumbomania spread, the number of comments it drew, and the rabid nature of same were a revelation. Overnight, this thing became as big as Janet Jackson’s clothing failure or – dare I say it? – Britney Spears’ shaved head. Jim Zumbo is now as employable as the Unabomber, and Sarah Brady will no doubt adopt his comments to her own gun-control purposes.

For which you will now make excuses. That speed frightened you, didn’t it?

For the last several days I’ve been visiting all manner of blogs and chatrooms, which has reminded me of when I used to deliver used clothing to the local mental hospital. I’ve tried to make some sense of it all, but because the waters are still full of blood and body parts continue to rain from the sky, I haven’t come up with any Great Truths. Lacking that, here are some Lesser Truths.

What Jim said was ill-considered. He’s entitled to his beliefs, but when a writer of his stature comes out against black guns, it sure as hell does not help our cause.

Understatement #1. What he said was not only ill-considered, it was (to many of us) inexcusable. Which is what you’re railing against here.

Even so, Jim made an immediate apology. He did not equivocate, or qualify, or make excuses. He acted like a gentleman and said he was wrong, and he was sorry. Apparently this is not enough anymore. We now live in the era of one strike and you’re out.

Uh, no. As both I and Tom Gresham have noted (among myriad others lost in the cacophony of outrage), Jim’s initial apology missed the point. And so have you.

To quote myself:

How about this, Jim? How about we educate the public (and other Elmer Fudds like you) about semi-automatic rifles? And how about you break your damned fingers for ever typing the word “BAN” in relationship to firearms you goddamned gun-bigot?

And Gresham:

Jim basically committed career suicide. In short, he wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life web site that he had just learned (while on a hunt) that some people use AR-15 rifles for hunting. He offered his thought that this was a bad image for hunters. Okay, that’s his opinion. But, he went even further, calling for game departments to ban the use of these rifles for hunting. After crossing the line and calling for a banning of those guns for hunting, he firmly planted his foot on a land mine and called AR-15s “terrorist rifles.” The explosion from that misstep was heard throughout the firearms industry.

His apology didn’t address the points. He said “I’m sorry!” and “I’m a patriot!” but every apology so far has been of the order of “I didn’t know so many people hunted with them!” As I said in my last piece:

The opinion I am left with is one that many, many people on many boards and in many comments have left – Zumbo just doesn’t get it.

Gresham got it. Why haven’t you?

For 40 years, Jim has been a spokesman and ambassador of good will for hunting. Through his tireless efforts as a teacher and lecturer on hunting and hunting skills, he has done more for the sport than any 250 of the yahoos who called for his blood.

Ever hear the expression “One ‘Oh Shit!’ cancels all ‘Atta boy’s!'”? That was a huge “Oh Shit!” And while I’m as interested in the preservation of the sport of hunting as the next guy, it seems that preservation of the right to keep and bear arms is a prerequisite, no? Unless you plan on hunting exclusively with a bow. Or a sharp, pointy stick.

Jim has paid dearly for what he said. He has lost his blog and his association with Remington. Cabela’s has suspended its sponsorship of his TV show; and Outdoor Life has accepted his offer to sever ties. To all the chatroom heroes who made him unemployable, I have a word of warning: You’ve been swinging a two-edged sword. A United States in which someone can be ruined for voicing an unpopular opinion is a dangerous place. Today it was Jim’s turn. Tomorrow it may be yours.

BZZZZT! I’m sorry, Dave, but that’s the wrong answer! Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from its consequences. I could say something stupid tomorrow that might lose me my job. Therefore it’s encumbent on me to control what I say. That’s what’s called a “market force,” and it’s not “censorship.” Censorship is when the GOVERNMENT tells you what you can and can’t say – at the point of a gun.

How long have you been a journalist again?

If Sarah Brady is smart – and she is very smart – she will comb through the same blogs and chatrooms I’ve been reading, excerpt some of the most vicious and foul-mouthed entries, print them up, and distribute them to Congress.

Wait, wait… Jim Zumbo should be allowed to say anything he wants without fear of consequence, but we hoi polloi, the non-gunwriters, the un-anointed, are required to shut up and take it because the consequences of our speech could be grave? Sorry, but the words of the “former contributing editor at Outdoor Life” – one of the “most well-respected outdoor writers” will carry far more weight with Congress than the rantings of we little people – and you know that. They already think we should be disarmed. Zumbo just told them that they’re right. Frankly, I hope Ms. Brady does what you suggest. Congresscritters understand that we vote, and they know what one issue we vote on.

Then it will be interesting to see how the men and women who wrote that stuff enjoy seeing their efforts being put to use by every anti-gunner in America.

Sorry, David, but that falls totally flat.

Yes, a lot of people went overboard, but as I’ve commented several times, it’s the end result of what Dr. Michael S. Brown once referred to as a “decades-long slow-motion hate crime” – the hatred of guns and gun owners by those outside our culture. It’s wearing, and I’m not surprised that the patience of so many is wearing so obviously thin. Having someone inside that culture stab us in the back resulted in this outpouring of vitriol and invective. But try re-reading some of those forums and blogs. A lot of us had a lot to say about it that you obviously missed.

“ChrisH” wrote in a comment to Petzal’s post:

First, Jim wrote what I’m sure a lot of folks think.

I’m sure they do. That’s what’s got to change. If the different factions of the shooting world don’t figure that out, and soon, we might very well go the way of the British.

UPDATE, 2/23: David Codrea (and a lot of the commenters on Petzal’s post) notes that David Petzal was a supporter of “advocat(ed) compromise” on the 1994 Clinton AWB:

Gun owners — all gun owners — pay a heavy price for having to defend the availability of these weapons,” writes Petzal. “The American public — and the gun-owning public; especially the gun-owning public — would be better off without the hardcore military arms, which puts the average sportsman in a real dilemma” Petzal concludes by advocating compromise, something that Knox and other members of his regime say they will never accept.

This was when Field & Stream quite publicly separated itself from the National Rifle Association.

I can’t say this any better than Tam did a couple of days ago when this whole thing first blew up:

Your attempt to throw me out of the sleigh, hoping that the wolves would be satisfied with my AR and would leave your precious bambi-zapper alone, is the most craven act of contemptible cowardice I’ve seen in a while.

That goes double for you, Mr. Petzal. “Gun Nut,” my ass. RTWT (both pieces) if you haven’t already.