<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16735" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Somewhat off the main point, but...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Part of the issues raised about hunting weapons deal
with sportspersonship, fair chase, safety, etc and <STRONG>not</STRONG>
about gun control as the NRA would have all believe.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I am in the woods part of the day at least 5 days out of the week.
During hunting season (now), I hear lots of semi-automatic weapon fire, both
from rifles and shotguns. About two weeks ago, the was a salvo of about 30
shots in just a few seconds.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm showing my age, but when I hunted as a kid in Idaho, semi-automatic
weapons were not allowed. Each round had to be pumped or levered into the
chamber. Shotguns were only allowed to have the capacity of 3 shots before
reloading, and rifles were only allowed to have 5 or six shots. Violators
using semi-automatics in those days were called (rightly so) slob hunters, and
they were ridiculed and shunned by legitimate sportspersons.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The point was that if you were a skilled hunter and sportsperson, you
didn't take a shot unless there was a very high probability that it would be a
lethal one. I wonder what happened to that ethic.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On a related subject, I was a boy/explorer scout for several years. I
went through weapon/hunting safety training at least 6 and maybe 10 times.
In addition, I was asked to monitor and to evaluate a weapon/hunting
safety course for first-time violators in California. One cardinal
rule then taught was: Do not hunt within your weapon's range of any
dwelling, highway, main off-road, or campground, or any domestic livestock,
horse, or fowl farm/ranch or pasturage.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I understand that this rule is no longer taught in weapon/hunter safety
courses in Idaho. What a pity. Several houses in our neighborhood
have been hit by rifle fire or strafed by shotgun pellets. When I lived in
Boundary County during the 1980s, it was a rare hunting seasons when some cattle
or even horses were not accidently injured or slaughtered either by hunter
stupidity/carelessness or stray bullets.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In addition, when I hunted as a kid, people used to hunt mainly with 30.06s
or 30-30s which have a range of about a mile. Now we have these crazys
firing high muzzle velocity .222s which have a range of about 2 1/2 miles.
In addition, we have other crazys using bulked up .50 caliber rifles; aside from
the fact they sound like cannons and can be heard for miles, they have a range
of about five miles.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Not to belabor a point, but some hunters do not clearly identify what they
are shooting at, nor do they consider the consequences of missing. Some
still shoot at just sounds in the woods, especially toward the end of hunting
season (or just after). Not only do hunters and others get killed by
careless hunters, but many, many more careless hunters narrowly miss
(thankfully) shooting others. I can personally testify to having been
a target several times -- the last time about three years ago, two days after
the close of hunting season.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So when people argue that they ought be allowed to hunt with
semi-automatics, etc, they fail to sway me. The woods are unsafe enough
with single shot weapons. People making such arguments only convince me
that they are unskilled slob hunters without regard of the safety of
others, or of taking a clean, sportspersonlike shot at their target.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>W.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=donaledwards@hotmail.com
href="mailto:donaledwards@hotmail.com">donald edwards</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, November 11, 2008 12:07
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Gun Bans</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>I think some people have missed the point in Mike's
post. There are weapons on the banned list that have the exact same
capabilites and capacity as regular ol' hunting rifles. Banning these
based on their appearance alone is kind of a weird premis, right? If you
can't buy an M1-Garand that holds a 30 round clip and fires semi-automatically
(or just installing a bayonet makes it illegal) but can walk right in a buy a
regular looking, wooden stock 30-06 with the exact same capability, than
what's the point of the ban? Personally, it's annoying to have to
install a wooden dowel into a pump action shotgun so that it will only hold 2
shells vs. 7-8. Not much point again.<BR> <BR>Most gansta's
probably prefer .22 small caliber pistols anyway because they are easy to
conceal, much quieter, much lighter, pennies per shot vs. quarters,
can hold 100 round clips or more, fire semi-automatically (or easily converted
to full auto) and the bullets actually either richochet around off of bone and
internals or scatter into little pieces inside causing greater damage and
infection where a 9mm would zip right through at subsonic speed practically
cautorizing the wound as it enters and
exits.<BR> <BR>Don<BR><BR><BR><BR>> From:
vision2020-request@moscow.com<BR>> Subject: Vision2020 Digest, Vol 29,
Issue 125<BR>> To: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008
05:30:11 -0800<BR>> <BR>> Send Vision2020 mailing list submissions
to<BR>> vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> <BR>> To subscribe or unsubscribe
via the World Wide Web, visit<BR>>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020<BR>> or, via email, send
a message with subject or body 'help' to<BR>>
vision2020-request@moscow.com<BR>> <BR>> You can reach the person
managing the list at<BR>> vision2020-owner@moscow.com<BR>> <BR>> When
replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<BR>> than
"Re: Contents of Vision2020 digest..."<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Today's
Topics:<BR>> <BR>> 1. Re: obama election / gun purchases (Scott
Dredge)<BR>> 2. Special Comment on Gay Marriage ~ Keith Olbermann
(Chasuk)<BR>> 3. Re: obama election / gun purchases (Donovan
Arnold)<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
<BR>> Message: 1<BR>> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:26:56 -0700<BR>>
From: Scott Dredge <scooterd408@hotmail.com><BR>> Subject: Re:
[Vision2020] obama election / gun purchases<BR>> To:
<mike_l_f@hotmail.com>, viz <vision2020@moscow.com><BR>>
Message-ID: <BAY117-W192BDACC6DD19D1D4ACCBFE4150@phx.gbl><BR>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
There isn't much support for reinstating the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
There would need to be some kind of catalyst like there was with the Stockton
Massacre back in 1989 where some unstable guy got ahold of a semi-automatic
rifle and shot up a bunch of school children.<BR>> <BR>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton_massacre<BR>> <BR>> Before the ban
took effect, sales increased dramatically on AK-47s and Colt AR-15s.<BR>>
<BR>> As far as I know, the VA Tech Massacre last year did not produced any
changes in gun control laws or lack thereof.<BR>> <BR>> It's interesting
to read about how 'the sky is falling' on 2nd Amendment rights. This Obama
character looks to be an unstoppable juggernaut which is quite a contrast to
an impotent George W. Bush. I wonder why.<BR>> <BR>> -Scott<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> > From: mike_l_f@hotmail.com<BR>> > To:
vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 04:26:43
+0000<BR>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] obama election / gun
purchases<BR>> > <BR>> > Setting aside anything that Senator Obama
may have said or done in the past, <BR>> > people are concerned about
his effect on honest gun owners because on the <BR>> >
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/ web site there is this statement
-<BR>> > <BR>> > "They also support making the expired federal
Assault Weapons Ban permanent"<BR>> > <BR>> > If you aren't
familiar with firearms that may seem reasonable, but when you <BR>> >
look at the details it's pretty obvious that it's not an effective tool
<BR>> > against crime. First, the government admitted that ?... the
weapons banned <BR>> > by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons
ban - since repealed] were <BR>> > used only rarely in gun crimes?.
(National Institute of Justice, March <BR>> > 1999) Secondly, there was
no positive effect. Violent crime has continued <BR>> > to trend
downward since the ban was lifted, and rifles of any description <BR>> >
continue to be involved in a tiny percentage of crimes.<BR>> > <BR>>
> The law was based largely on the way rifles look. Features such as barrel
<BR>> > shrouds, pistol grips and other ergonomic features may set them
apart from <BR>> > classic walnut stocked sporting rifles, but seem
pretty trivial from a <BR>> > criminal perspective. The two mechanical
features mentioned are that these <BR>> > firearms have a detachable box
magazine which can hold several cartridges, <BR>> > and the self-loading
action allows you to fire one shot with each pull of <BR>> > the trigger
until the magazine is empty.<BR>> > <BR>> > By comparison I was
looking at a 1950's Remington Woodsmaster rifle in Sure <BR>> > Shot
sporting goods last week. It has a fine walnut stock, is self-loading,
<BR>> > has a detachable box magazine and fires the 30-06, a far more
powerful <BR>> > cartridge than almost all of the rifles on the "Assault
Weapons" list. <BR>> > There are many hundreds of thousands of rifles
similar to that in hunter's <BR>> > closets around the country. Do you
wonder that they are concerned about <BR>> > laws banning similar
firearms?<BR>> > <BR>> > But people say they only want to ban
firearms which can shoot 20 or 30 times <BR>> > without reloading. It
would be pretty easy to put a larger magazine on the <BR>> > Woodsmaster
or it's cousins, and I wonder when they will decide that also <BR>> >
includes shotguns. If you load your pump shotgun with five 00 buckshot
<BR>> > cartridges and fire until it's empty, you will have sent 45
heavy lead .33 <BR>> > caliber balls at your target. They won't travel
as far as a rifle bullet, <BR>> > but anyone within 100 yards will be in
deadly danger.<BR>> > <BR>> > In other words, banning a category
of weapons which are only cosmetically <BR>> > different than common
hunting rifles, and no more lethal than common <BR>> > shotguns seems
like a cynical first step towards - what? There is no <BR>> > evidence
it's for crime control.<BR>> > <BR>> > In 2003 the Center for
Disease Control published a review of studies from <BR>> > several
countries. They state that they found "insufficient evidence to <BR>> >
determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for <BR>>
> preventing violence". (Wikipedia) It seems that criminals are willing to
<BR>> > break laws to get weapons. There have been several academic
studies which <BR>> > revealed many benefits that honest citizens gain
from owning firearms for <BR>> > self defense, but this is already too
long to go into that.<BR>> > <BR>> > This country has done well
over the last two centuries for several reasons. <BR>> > One of them is
the balance of power. We have been suffering through a <BR>> > period
where one group has been acting to restrict some of our rights. This <BR>>
> years election can probably be seen as a reaction to that. The pendulum
<BR>> > swings. If the government distrusts the citizens so much that it
fears <BR>> > leaving them effectively armed, at some future date will
the party in power <BR>> > decide that elections are too dangerous, and
they now have the power to stop <BR>> > the pendulum?<BR>> >
<BR>> > - Mike<BR>> > <BR>> > Every normal man must be
tempted at times to spit on his hands,<BR>> > hoist the black flag, and
begin slitting throats.<BR>> > -- H. L. <BR>> > MENCKEN<BR>>
> <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>>
_________________________________________________________________<BR>> Stay
up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows
Live<BR>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119462413/direct/01/<BR>>
-------------- next part --------------<BR>> An HTML attachment was
scrubbed...<BR>> URL:
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081111/320cc833/attachment-0001.html
<BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> Message:
2<BR>> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 01:18:22 -0800<BR>> From: Chasuk
<chasuk@gmail.com><BR>> Subject: [Vision2020] Special Comment on Gay
Marriage ~ Keith<BR>> Olbermann<BR>> To: Vision2020
<vision2020@moscow.com><BR>> Message-ID:<BR>>
<ef6f41de0811110118g3726c791i63a3d901c26e968c@mail.gmail.com><BR>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<BR>> <BR>> I know that
Keith can be bombastic, but this is good.<BR>> <BR>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> Message: 3<BR>> Date: Tue,
11 Nov 2008 05:30:06 -0800 (PST)<BR>> From: Donovan Arnold
<donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com><BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] obama
election / gun purchases<BR>> To: vision2020@moscow.com, Mike Finkbiner
<mike_l_f@hotmail.com><BR>> Message-ID:
<840716.25759.qm@web38103.mail.mud.yahoo.com><BR>> Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="windows-1252"<BR>> <BR>> Mike,<BR>> ?<BR>>
The majority of weapons used in murder are actually handguns. So banning
weapons on the bases of how often they are used as a murder weapon is not
always?practical. <BR>> ?<BR>> Most people agree with banning assault
weapons because they are dangerous machines that can be used only in?tragic
ways and go well beyond?the need of self-defense. <BR>> ?<BR>> The rate
of murders are not caused by the type of weapons available so much as they are
based on the economic and social conditions of the culture at the time.
Meaning, murders go up or down based on how desperate the people are for a
decent living. <BR>> ?<BR>> I think it is the right of every law abiding
decent human when?properly trained?to own a handgun for personal protection
from harm against him/her their family and property. They should also have the
right to a rifle or high power weapon for killing game. But I think an assault
weapon designed to kill hundreds of people in a few minutes is beyond what an
average citizen could possibly need for legitimate purposes. I think if
someone wants such a weapon, they should have to demonstrate a reasonable need
for it, and get special license for it. <BR>> ?<BR>> Best
Regards,<BR>> ?<BR>> Donovan<BR>> <BR>> --- On Mon, 11/10/08, Mike
Finkbiner <mike_l_f@hotmail.com> wrote:<BR>> <BR>> From: Mike
Finkbiner <mike_l_f@hotmail.com><BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] obama
election / gun purchases<BR>> To: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> Date:
Monday, November 10, 2008, 8:26 PM<BR>> <BR>> Setting aside anything
that Senator Obama may have said or done in the past,<BR>> people are
concerned about his effect on honest gun owners because on the<BR>>
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/ web site there is this statement
-<BR>> <BR>> "They also support making the expired federal Assault
Weapons Ban<BR>> permanent"<BR>> <BR>> If you aren't familiar with
firearms that may seem reasonable, but when you<BR>> look at the details
it's pretty obvious that it's not an effective tool<BR>> against crime.
First, the government admitted that ?... the weapons banned<BR>> by this
legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban - since repealed] were<BR>>
used only rarely in gun crimes?. (National Institute of Justice, March 1999)
<BR>> Secondly, there was no positive effect. Violent crime has continued
to trend<BR>> downward since the ban was lifted, and rifles of any
description continue to be<BR>> involved in a tiny percentage of
crimes.<BR>> <BR>> The law was based largely on the way rifles look.
Features such as barrel<BR>> shrouds, pistol grips and other ergonomic
features may set them apart from<BR>> classic walnut stocked sporting
rifles, but seem pretty trivial from a criminal<BR>> perspective. The two
mechanical features mentioned are that these firearms<BR>> have a
detachable box magazine which can hold several cartridges, and the<BR>>
self-loading action allows you to fire one shot with each pull of the
trigger<BR>> until the magazine is empty.<BR>> <BR>> By comparison I
was looking at a 1950's Remington Woodsmaster rifle in Sure<BR>> Shot
sporting goods last week. It has a fine walnut stock, is self-loading,
has<BR>> a detachable box magazine and fires the 30-06, a far more powerful
cartridge<BR>> than almost all of the rifles on the "Assault Weapons" list.
There<BR>> are many hundreds of thousands of rifles similar to that in
hunter's closets<BR>> around the country. Do you wonder that they are
concerned about laws banning<BR>> similar firearms?<BR>> <BR>> But
people say they only want to ban firearms which can shoot 20 or 30
times<BR>> without reloading. It would be pretty easy to put a larger
magazine on the<BR>> Woodsmaster or it's cousins, and I wonder when they
will decide that also<BR>> includes shotguns. If you load your pump shotgun
with five 00 buckshot<BR>> cartridges and fire until it's empty, you will
have sent 45 heavy lead .33<BR>> caliber balls at your target. They won't
travel as far as a rifle bullet,<BR>> but anyone within 100 yards will be
in deadly danger.<BR>> <BR>> In other words, banning a category of
weapons which are only cosmetically<BR>> different than common hunting
rifles, and no more lethal than common shotguns<BR>> seems like a cynical
first step towards - what? There is no evidence it's<BR>> for crime
control.<BR>> <BR>> In 2003 the Center for Disease Control published a
review of studies from<BR>> several countries. They state that they found
"insufficient evidence to<BR>> determine the effectiveness of any of the
firearms laws reviewed for preventing<BR>> violence". (Wikipedia) It seems
that criminals are willing to break laws<BR>> to get weapons. There have
been several academic studies which revealed many<BR>> benefits that honest
citizens gain from owning firearms for self defense, but<BR>> this is
already too long to go into that.<BR>> <BR>> This country has done well
over the last two centuries for several reasons. <BR>> One of them is the
balance of power. We have been suffering through a period<BR>> where one
group has been acting to restrict some of our rights. This years<BR>>
election can probably be seen as a reaction to that. The pendulum swings.
If<BR>> the government distrusts the citizens so much that it fears leaving
them<BR>> effectively armed, at some future date will the party in power
decide that<BR>> elections are too dangerous, and they now have the power
to stop the pendulum?<BR>> <BR>> - Mike<BR>> <BR>> Every normal
man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands,<BR>> hoist the black
flag, and begin slitting throats.<BR>> -- H. L.<BR>> MENCKEN<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> List services
made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the communities of the
Palouse since 1994. <BR>> http://www.fsr.net <BR>>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> -------------- next part --------------<BR>> An HTML
attachment was scrubbed...<BR>> URL:
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081111/b44c38a0/attachment.html
<BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------<BR>> <BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> List services
made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the communities of the
Palouse since 1994. <BR>> http://www.fsr.net <BR>>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> <BR>> End
of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 29, Issue 125<BR>>
*******************************************<BR><BR><BR>
<HR>
Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious email.
<A
href="http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_safety_112008"
target=_new>Sign up today.</A>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>