Posted on 11/29/2004 9:00:30 AM PST by TERMINATTOR
Moron?
classic case of using the exception to prove the rule.
Moran?
Bugs Bunny reference...
The details of what really happened will have to be sorted out.
But no matter what details emerge, the events invariably support my position.
The notion that more guns will ever translate into less violence has always been absurd.
There are approximately two million defensive gun uses per year by law abiding US citizens.
What he doesn't mention is that only ONE of the victims was armed. The others were unarmed. The killer could have done the same thing with a bow and arrow or a club.
The weapon didn't kill these people, the nut holding it did.
bump
The message written between the lines is this: "The totalitarian socialist state won't be fully realized until the masses are unarmed and defenseless."
To address this twit's second point, having access to and knowing how to use guns didn't do squat for the dead hunters because THEY WEREN"T CARRYING THEIR GUNS (except one guy). If the hunters had all been armed, Vang would have had a very short and exciting life once he started shooting.
Idiots. Having "access" is very different from having a firearm in your immediate possession when threatened. The hunters murdered by Vang did not have their weapons in their immediate possession. None had any expectation of engaging in close quarters combat with an armed assailant. Deer don't shoot back.
There isn't anything special about an SKS. It's just another magazine fed semi-auto rifle. It probably was not even an SKS, but actually a Saiga Sporter AK-47 variant with a magazine well that fits only Saiga supplied 10-round magazines. Vang did reload according to reports.
The hunters that were shot were probably used to a lifetime of collegiality among hunters, who sometimes accidentally cross property lines, but leave gladly and willingly when their trespass is discovered. They were not prepared to be shot on their own property for asking someone to leave. They were not prepared to deal with a crazed SE Asian who obviously has learned to play the race card just like the good little liberal social engineering thrall that he is.
There was only one gun among the hunters that were shot, a detail that seems to have escaped the writer of this 'opinion'. And I guarantee that if the Hmong shooter had been killed by a 'white' hunter before he could have done the damage he did, this same liberal snot-nosed writer would be calling this a hate crime.
These gun-grabbing lunatics haven't a clue what they ask for.
It's possible that "Myth" 2 was upheld rather than nullified. The killer was apparently a US Army veteran and probably felt like his life was in danger so used his training and a medium powered semiautomatic weapon to defend his life. I'm not saying he made the correct decision in hunting without authorization on private land or carrying more than 5 rounds for hunting, but that doesn't mean he didn't use a firearm in self defense.
Hyperbolic. It is highly unlikely the same damage could have been done with these weapons.
Your heart is in the right place, but your analogy blows. :)
Moral: do not confront without backup. Or do not confront.
Hunters do not kill each other. Hunters scout before the season and always obtain permission from the landowner. Hunters know where they are and who's land they are hunting on.
The thing I hate most about this (after loss of life) is that millions of responsible hunters will take the heat for this. When will we learn not to throw the baby out with the bathwater? One just cannot be protected from the criminally insane or stupid. It is not possible. What possible new law could be necessary that would have prevented this debacle? Perhaps a bounty on trespassers... I don't think that will fly.
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.