Similar posting here : http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1786992/posts
I've heard this kind of reasoning before. I think Zumbo and his ilk, came out in oposition to archery hunting because it wasn't effective "enough."
Kind of hypocritical.
Yes, my search was WEAK - and the previous post was not indexed to Banglist.
I'm sitting here trying to figure out why he is OK with Remington developing new weapons e.g. the .17 cal with all its advantages for varminting... etc. Why, his .270 or .243 or whatever he's used in the past wasn't good enough? Seems like most people have been doing fine without the .17 cal for some time, why don't they just continue with older weapons? Hmmm me detects a little cognitive dissonance here... Zumbo is a hypocrite. Maybe he should just tell us all to spraypaint our AR's hunter orange so that people can tell they aren't assault weapons. Or maybe all hunting weapons should be a nice lavender/pink so that we know for sure they aren't terrorists that are using them.
If I recall, the last weapons terrorists used against us were airplanes. And our military carries 'terrorist weapons. I guess that makes them 'look like terrorists' too to him. Maybe they should carry a bouquet of roses and a box of chocolates?
AAAAAUGH!!! /end rant