Posted on 11/29/2004 9:00:30 AM PST by TERMINATTOR
At the risk of noting the obvious, Sunday's deadly confrontation between a semiautomatic weapon-wielding Minnesotan and a group of hunters in northern Wisconsin can and should be factored into debates about the availability of semiautomatic and automatic weapons.
When hunters in Sawyer County confronted the Minnesotan - a 36-year-old Hmong immigrant named Chai Vang who was in a deer stand on private property and told him that he would have to leave - several of the greatest myths that are peddled by opponents of gun control exploded.
To wit:
• Myth One: A semiautomatic weapon is just another kind of gun.
When he was told to leave, in what may or may not have been a racially charged incident, Vang is reported to have responded by opening fire with a high-powered semiautomatic SKS carbine. By the time he was done, six hunters - five men and a woman - were dead or dying. Two others were badly wounded. Several had been shot more than once. Though advocates for no-holds-barred gun policies will claim that just as much havoc could have been wreaked with a standard hunting rifle, that claim is nonsense.
Semiautomatic weapons are increasingly popular among hunters of a not particularly sporting ilk. But it is comic to suggest that they are needed for hunting, unless the targets are people. In northern Wisconsin on Sunday, the toll was higher because the shooter had a semiautomatic weapon.
Does this mean that we need a blanket ban on semiautomatic and automatic assault weapons from here on out? Not necessarily. There are subtleties in this debate - especially when guns are modified. But the debate ought to be more realistic than it has been up to this point, and what happened in northern Wisconsin on Sunday ought to be factored into the debate.
• Myth Two: When people are well armed and trained to use their weapons, they can protect themselves against gun violence.
The victims in Sawyer County had access to guns and knew how to use them. Most of the dead had long experience with their weapons. But they were not prepared for a confrontation with a man who was ready to kill and was carrying a semiautomatic weapon.
The notion that more guns will ever translate into less violence has always been absurd. But the incident on Sunday should remind everyone of the extent to which this fantasy can be deadly.
The point here is not to advocate for sweeping gun controls. This newspaper has always recognized the right to bear arms and we respect the hunting traditions that are so ingrained in Wisconsin.
The group of hunters who were attacked in the woods on Sunday had a right to bear arms. Initial reports suggested that most of them were exercising that right responsibly, although Vang's statement raised concerns about whether that was really the case. The Minnesotan claims that at least one of the Wisconsin hunters shouted a racial epithet at him and then shot at him.
The details of what really happened will have to be sorted out.
But the fact that volatile situations are made dramatically more dangerous when semiautomatic weapons are present should be beyond debate.
Sensible gun controls - perhaps in the form of a ban on hunting with semiautomatic and automatic weapons; perhaps in the form of a more sweeping restriction on the purchase of some guns - place some restrictions on the absolute right to bear arms. But such controls might well have saved at least some of the lives of those hunters.
The proper response to this deadly incident is a balanced one. Wisconsinites have a right to bear arms and to hunt, and that right ought to be protected. But they also have a right to be protected from weapons that are better designed for hunting people than deer.
"The Boston Strangler", a smooth-talking sadist who savagely murdered thirteen women during an eighteen-month reign of sheer terror.
Andrei Chikatilo, Soviet cops finally nabbed him in 1990. He was charged with fifty-three murders, though the true total may have been much higher.
Richard Ramirez, --"The Night Stalker" He was convicted of thirteen murders and sentenced to death. According to his own estimate, Richie was responsible for even more killing than he was credited for. "I've killed twenty men, man", he told a fellow inmate.
Jane Toppan, She was eventually nabbed in Amherst, NH, October, 1901, but not before she managed to kill her own foster sister. She finally confessed to poisoning not only the Davis clan, but eleven other victims as well. Later, she would tell her lawyer that the true total was thirty-one.
Get the picture about "blaming" guns for atrocities...
Dear Editor:
Click the Pic
You mean a gun killed the hunters. I thought it was a crazed SUV.
The SKS is NOT particularly high powered - it is about the same as a 30-30 (a common deer rifle).
NO evidence that the single weapon carried or used by the victims was not a semiautomatic, as well. Most folks today get one by default.
Nor any proof that the shooter could not have done the same in the same circumstances (deerstand, unarmed targets) with a bolt action. History is full of similar feats, against armed targets.
You mean a gun killed the hunters. I thought it was a crazed SUV.
This dirtbag could have done the same thing with a semi-automatic shotgun - or a pump even. Some will hold up to seven shells and a decent shot can spit those out just about as quickly as with a rifle -- and with a shotgun, you don't need to be nearly as accurate!
The only thing blowing up here is the writer's credibility (if he had any to start with).
One other thing that is never mentioned when the issue of Semi-autos and hunting comes up is that most (if not all) states here in the US prescribe a 5-round magazine limit in a hunting rifle. If our friend here had larger magazines, not only was he a murderer, but he *gasp* violated state game regulations!
Of the several reports I've read on the Internet and the newspaper, this is the first I've heard that there was only one firearm to defend against the guy with the SKS.
Idiot alert.
Point 2A:
And, if the hunters had been armed, it still is problimatical how it would turn out, as beeing experienced at HUNTING usage is no guarantee one is prepped and trained for self defensive firearms usage.
It seems all were shot either standing, sitting on an ATV, or running away. In any case, all were presenting good targets. NOT a criticism of the victims, just an observation of circumstances.
As to the twit's dreaded "high powered semi-auto", for the first six AIMED rounds, my much higher powered, short-throw lever action is just as quick (and more immediately deadly) as a civilian semi. I do take longer to reload.
Wonder why they haven't reported that the one (1), only one "armed" hunter who went to the aid of the others, who left their firearms in their deer camp ,was carrying a remington 7400 semi-auto ?
Just doesn't fit their agenda I guess......
Repeal the 5 round mag "limit" for hunters. Repeal the no loaded guns in vehicles and ATV's. Those who came to render assistance on ATV's, may have been unarmed due to "regs" against having a loaded weapon in/on a vehicle. Repeal the 30,000 other unconstitutional infringements of the Second Amendment. An armed society is a polite society.
The founding fathers gave us the formula for preserving freedom AND security - the Second Amendment.
He was? Didn't know that.
There are so called "laws" against carrying loaded firearms in or on a vehicle. This stupid and illegal legislation may be one reason that those on ATV's, responding to the call for help, were unarmed.
• Myth Two: When people are well armed and trained to use their weapons, they can protect themselves against gun violence.
Vang in his own statement supports "myth two":
Vang stated that Vang observed 3 other subjects coming on an ATV. Vang stated that Vang then turned his reversible coat from orange to camo. Vang stated that he also reloaded his magazine with 5 or 6 bullets. Vang stated that Vang did not shoot at these men because they had guns with them.
Maybe the hunters fired upon by the suspect were drunk. I've heard tell some folks like to go hunting not for the sport but for the opportunity to get away from the old lady and screaming kids and tie one on. Mixing hooch with guns is about the most stupid thing you can do. Perhaps Vang's attack was preemptive if he sensed that these round eyes were armed and wasted.
You have no evidence that they were “wasted” and neither did Vang.
And only one of the “round eyes” was even armed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
