I thought the group might like to see the correspondence I had with local Outdoors writer Dave Henderson (Ithaca and Upstate, NY) regarding his personal defense of Jim Zumbo last week. He said in today’s column,
http://ithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070308/SPORTS/703080374/1006/SPORTS
that he received the most response to that article that he’d had in 40 years of writing the Outdoors column and that he was “cutting off the debate and moving on to other subjects”. While he claimed “one third of the responses were supportive, but just as disheartening is the fact that approximately 80 percent of the pro gun respondents ridiculed hunters per se right along with Zumbo and I”.
So am I missing something here? How can a third be supportive (presumably of Henderson and Zumbo) and 80 percent of the pro gun respondents ridicule hunters per se ? I think he is as confused in his math as he is about black rifles. Notice how he claims he’s a “fanatic” and that he’s used an AR for hunting too. How can he be these things and still label black gun owners as “ilk” and “fanatics”. Confusion, confusion.
He can be emailed at dddhender@aol.com even though he is not responding anymore to the issue. It might be good to let him see some more responses anyway.
Dave,
I've read your column with pleasure for many years and it has been one
of the highlights for me of the Ithaca Journal. I also know that the
subject matter you cover gets strong reactions from different schools of
thought within firearms groups. I understand your feelings about the
harsh reaction aimed at your friend Jim Zumbo for his offhand remark
about assault weapons.You explained the basic similarities and
differences between the AR15 and a real assault weapon quite well and
also noted that the civilian version is used in target competition. All
well and good, but you then went another step further in revealing your
own bias by categorizing some of its adherents as "their ilk", and then
as "fanatics", thereby making an unneeded generalization which only
further roiled the waters and has probably cost you some readers too.
I know you are aware that New York may have more than its fair share of
anti-gun lawmakers and that a proposal to renew the national assault
weapon ban is in the works. These bills often make little or no
distinction between guns that are semi-automatic and tend to lump them
all together and demonize them all. You more than most newspaper writers
know that these weapons are made by all the big gun manufacturers and
have in fact been used for hunting for decades and are still being
produced for that market today. The AR is used for hunting coyotes and
for these highly intelligent and fast moving animals a second or third
rapid shot may be necessary. This is especially true for another weapon,
the semi-automatic shotgun when hunting ducks, pheasants and rabbits.
Ruger's Ranch rifle, used for all manner of hunting will be included in
the new ban simply because its function is exactly the same as the AR.
And there are many, many others.
And finally, I think you do all shooters a disservice when you give gun
opponents more "ammunition' for their arguments. You might say instead
that we as Americans have many choices on what we may legally own and
that most of these weapons are already regulated as to their use. No
shooting near schools or private residences, no carrying of weapons in
federal facilities and airports. Some states won't let the .223 be used
for deer hunting, other states regulate magazine capacities, but the
guns themselves can be regulated and not their ownership. We already
have plenty of laws on the books to regulate guns and their use. And you
can always point out as I am sure you have done many times before that
the vast number of sportsmen, hunters, target shooters and gun
collectors are decent people who follow these rules.
Sincerely,
James Furman
Trumansburg,NY
Jim,
> You've got to know that, with a Republican Senate that listens to
> sportsmen, there's no way New York will ever pass restrictions on
> commonly used semiautomatic shotguns/rimfires, etc. Hunting guns will
> be protected past the time when there is no more hunting, which will
> occur in 40-50 years. Hunting is dying due to lack of interest, not
> anti's attacks.
>
> If the comments of a writer in a 25,000-circulation newspaper are fuel
> for the anti-gun movement, it would indeed be a strange world. The
> anti's aren't using Zumbo's words against us; they are sitting back
> and laughing at our reaction to his words.
>
> I am personally a shooting fanatic. I am a life member of the NRA; I
> shoot more rounds in a year than 99 percent of the people in this
> state shoot in a lifetime. I own scores of guns. I make almost my
> entire income (exclusive of the pennies I am paid for newspaper
> columns) with guns. I was virtually mated to an M-16 at one time in my
> youth and had an AR-15 for years when I shot in service rifle
> competition as a civilian. I also used it in the field, but found
> that there are far better rifles for hunting that gave me those quick
> follow up shots you noted.
>
>The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but not all
> arms. Autos have been legal only with a very special permit since
> 1939. Handguns are restricted. Sure banning or registering
> "look-a-likes" is meaningless in fighting crime, and that's why it
> hasn't happened. A ban or registration today would be for just what
> Zumbo noted -- separating hunters from the bad guys.
>
> You're picking out 1 or 2 words from the column that include me in
> Zumbo's sentiments. That's certainly fair, but who cares what someone
> like me thinks? I guess your point is that I shouldn't tell folks
> that I agreed with Zumbo. I didn't outline my opinion, just mentioned
> that I shared some aspects of what he said. The whole column was a
> statement that Zumbo was constitutionally guaranteed the right to say
> what he wanted, but lost everything because he did because of paranoia
> in the industry. That isn't right in the Land of the Free, regardless
> of opinion.
>
>
> thanx for your opinion,
> dave henderson
Dave,
Thanks so much for your quick and thoughtful reply. I hope you are right
about our situation in Upstate New York as this balance of power has
protected us for awhile. I say awhile because we now have two powerful
and prominent politicians in our midst who are staunchly anti gun. My
main point was that the anti's don't need any help with their rhetoric
and that this can best be avoided by accentuating the positives,
something that your column has done all along. I'm glad to hear that you
are a fanatic too. I would rather that you had mentioned this in your
article. I do take issue with your statement about the Second Amendment
however. Nowhere in the amendment does it state what kinds of arms that
citizens can own. The 1934 National Firearms Act was enacted in response
to the problems with gangsters brought on by Prohibition, and this is
not a part of the Amendment, but rather a federal law as was the 1986
Gun Control Act. Fully automatic weapons became highly regulated, but
officially legal with the tax stamp. There is a dedicated group of
'fanatics' that still own these weapons, but they have a very short
leash to the BATFE. This is a point I think anyone in the uninformed
worried public would find it reassuring to know.
Who cares what someone like you thinks? Well, I do for one, and in
today's world of the Internet there may be many more as these columns
tend to get passed around. I read columns like yours that have been
forwarded to gun forums and websites all the time. Your words have more
influence than you may know.
And you are right about the dwindling supply of land and hunters. I grew
up in Northern New Jersey and watched as development took away my
hunting spots. Lately I read an article (again connected to the
Internet) in my old hometown newspaper that an eleven year old boy was
detained and had his BB gun confiscated because someone called the
police. He was merely walking along the roadside. I walked on the same
roads he did with .22 rifles and shotguns slung over my shoulder without
a worry, but alas that was 50 years ago. Now it's coming to Tompkins
County, and rapidly. Every time I look around another open field is
blighted by a McMansion or a mini-mall and another hunting spot has
disappeared. Then come the laws and all the avenues the anti's summon up
to get them in place. I dread the time when they come to my clubs like
Odessa and Groton to look for lead content in the soil and measure the
decibel level of the shooting there.
Yours in fanaticism, and continued success for your column,
Jim Furman
Jim,
If the public would be reassured to know that certain firearms are
regulated (full-autos), wouldn't they be reassured if more were? Zumbo's
point.
dave h
Dave,
My point was that most guns ARE regulated in their usage by state laws
and I used the full auto example as the most extreme example that antis
might worry about. But the assault rifle is unclear in the public mind
as to what it actually is. Sure, some of the public would be reassured
if more semi-auto weapons were more needlessly regulated, some would
like that to apply to all guns. But wouldn't it be better if we pro-gun
types did a better job of explaining why AR's are the same as any other
semi-auto "sporting rifle", and by extension any other semi-auto pistol
or shotgun? I think it's mostly a case of semantics, and appearances.
Zumbo's slip reinforced the confusion over definitions while
simultaneously demonizing a class of firearms and their patrons.
Jim
http://ithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070308/SPORTS/703080374/1006/SPORTS
that he received the most response to that article that he’d had in 40 years of writing the Outdoors column and that he was “cutting off the debate and moving on to other subjects”. While he claimed “one third of the responses were supportive, but just as disheartening is the fact that approximately 80 percent of the pro gun respondents ridiculed hunters per se right along with Zumbo and I”.
So am I missing something here? How can a third be supportive (presumably of Henderson and Zumbo) and 80 percent of the pro gun respondents ridicule hunters per se ? I think he is as confused in his math as he is about black rifles. Notice how he claims he’s a “fanatic” and that he’s used an AR for hunting too. How can he be these things and still label black gun owners as “ilk” and “fanatics”. Confusion, confusion.
He can be emailed at dddhender@aol.com even though he is not responding anymore to the issue. It might be good to let him see some more responses anyway.
Dave,
I've read your column with pleasure for many years and it has been one
of the highlights for me of the Ithaca Journal. I also know that the
subject matter you cover gets strong reactions from different schools of
thought within firearms groups. I understand your feelings about the
harsh reaction aimed at your friend Jim Zumbo for his offhand remark
about assault weapons.You explained the basic similarities and
differences between the AR15 and a real assault weapon quite well and
also noted that the civilian version is used in target competition. All
well and good, but you then went another step further in revealing your
own bias by categorizing some of its adherents as "their ilk", and then
as "fanatics", thereby making an unneeded generalization which only
further roiled the waters and has probably cost you some readers too.
I know you are aware that New York may have more than its fair share of
anti-gun lawmakers and that a proposal to renew the national assault
weapon ban is in the works. These bills often make little or no
distinction between guns that are semi-automatic and tend to lump them
all together and demonize them all. You more than most newspaper writers
know that these weapons are made by all the big gun manufacturers and
have in fact been used for hunting for decades and are still being
produced for that market today. The AR is used for hunting coyotes and
for these highly intelligent and fast moving animals a second or third
rapid shot may be necessary. This is especially true for another weapon,
the semi-automatic shotgun when hunting ducks, pheasants and rabbits.
Ruger's Ranch rifle, used for all manner of hunting will be included in
the new ban simply because its function is exactly the same as the AR.
And there are many, many others.
And finally, I think you do all shooters a disservice when you give gun
opponents more "ammunition' for their arguments. You might say instead
that we as Americans have many choices on what we may legally own and
that most of these weapons are already regulated as to their use. No
shooting near schools or private residences, no carrying of weapons in
federal facilities and airports. Some states won't let the .223 be used
for deer hunting, other states regulate magazine capacities, but the
guns themselves can be regulated and not their ownership. We already
have plenty of laws on the books to regulate guns and their use. And you
can always point out as I am sure you have done many times before that
the vast number of sportsmen, hunters, target shooters and gun
collectors are decent people who follow these rules.
Sincerely,
James Furman
Trumansburg,NY
Jim,
> You've got to know that, with a Republican Senate that listens to
> sportsmen, there's no way New York will ever pass restrictions on
> commonly used semiautomatic shotguns/rimfires, etc. Hunting guns will
> be protected past the time when there is no more hunting, which will
> occur in 40-50 years. Hunting is dying due to lack of interest, not
> anti's attacks.
>
> If the comments of a writer in a 25,000-circulation newspaper are fuel
> for the anti-gun movement, it would indeed be a strange world. The
> anti's aren't using Zumbo's words against us; they are sitting back
> and laughing at our reaction to his words.
>
> I am personally a shooting fanatic. I am a life member of the NRA; I
> shoot more rounds in a year than 99 percent of the people in this
> state shoot in a lifetime. I own scores of guns. I make almost my
> entire income (exclusive of the pennies I am paid for newspaper
> columns) with guns. I was virtually mated to an M-16 at one time in my
> youth and had an AR-15 for years when I shot in service rifle
> competition as a civilian. I also used it in the field, but found
> that there are far better rifles for hunting that gave me those quick
> follow up shots you noted.
>
>The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but not all
> arms. Autos have been legal only with a very special permit since
> 1939. Handguns are restricted. Sure banning or registering
> "look-a-likes" is meaningless in fighting crime, and that's why it
> hasn't happened. A ban or registration today would be for just what
> Zumbo noted -- separating hunters from the bad guys.
>
> You're picking out 1 or 2 words from the column that include me in
> Zumbo's sentiments. That's certainly fair, but who cares what someone
> like me thinks? I guess your point is that I shouldn't tell folks
> that I agreed with Zumbo. I didn't outline my opinion, just mentioned
> that I shared some aspects of what he said. The whole column was a
> statement that Zumbo was constitutionally guaranteed the right to say
> what he wanted, but lost everything because he did because of paranoia
> in the industry. That isn't right in the Land of the Free, regardless
> of opinion.
>
>
> thanx for your opinion,
> dave henderson
Dave,
Thanks so much for your quick and thoughtful reply. I hope you are right
about our situation in Upstate New York as this balance of power has
protected us for awhile. I say awhile because we now have two powerful
and prominent politicians in our midst who are staunchly anti gun. My
main point was that the anti's don't need any help with their rhetoric
and that this can best be avoided by accentuating the positives,
something that your column has done all along. I'm glad to hear that you
are a fanatic too. I would rather that you had mentioned this in your
article. I do take issue with your statement about the Second Amendment
however. Nowhere in the amendment does it state what kinds of arms that
citizens can own. The 1934 National Firearms Act was enacted in response
to the problems with gangsters brought on by Prohibition, and this is
not a part of the Amendment, but rather a federal law as was the 1986
Gun Control Act. Fully automatic weapons became highly regulated, but
officially legal with the tax stamp. There is a dedicated group of
'fanatics' that still own these weapons, but they have a very short
leash to the BATFE. This is a point I think anyone in the uninformed
worried public would find it reassuring to know.
Who cares what someone like you thinks? Well, I do for one, and in
today's world of the Internet there may be many more as these columns
tend to get passed around. I read columns like yours that have been
forwarded to gun forums and websites all the time. Your words have more
influence than you may know.
And you are right about the dwindling supply of land and hunters. I grew
up in Northern New Jersey and watched as development took away my
hunting spots. Lately I read an article (again connected to the
Internet) in my old hometown newspaper that an eleven year old boy was
detained and had his BB gun confiscated because someone called the
police. He was merely walking along the roadside. I walked on the same
roads he did with .22 rifles and shotguns slung over my shoulder without
a worry, but alas that was 50 years ago. Now it's coming to Tompkins
County, and rapidly. Every time I look around another open field is
blighted by a McMansion or a mini-mall and another hunting spot has
disappeared. Then come the laws and all the avenues the anti's summon up
to get them in place. I dread the time when they come to my clubs like
Odessa and Groton to look for lead content in the soil and measure the
decibel level of the shooting there.
Yours in fanaticism, and continued success for your column,
Jim Furman
Jim,
If the public would be reassured to know that certain firearms are
regulated (full-autos), wouldn't they be reassured if more were? Zumbo's
point.
dave h
Dave,
My point was that most guns ARE regulated in their usage by state laws
and I used the full auto example as the most extreme example that antis
might worry about. But the assault rifle is unclear in the public mind
as to what it actually is. Sure, some of the public would be reassured
if more semi-auto weapons were more needlessly regulated, some would
like that to apply to all guns. But wouldn't it be better if we pro-gun
types did a better job of explaining why AR's are the same as any other
semi-auto "sporting rifle", and by extension any other semi-auto pistol
or shotgun? I think it's mostly a case of semantics, and appearances.
Zumbo's slip reinforced the confusion over definitions while
simultaneously demonizing a class of firearms and their patrons.
Jim