Ammo For Sale

« « Fake | Home | Time value » »

Careful, you might get Zumboed

David Codrea notes some criticism of Jim Zumbo by Field and Stream’s David Petzal:

What Jim said was ill-considered. Hes entitled to his beliefs, but when a writer of his stature comes out against black guns, it sure as hell does not help our cause.

But, in 1994:

“Gun owners — all gun owners — pay a heavy price for having to defend the availability of these weapons,” writes Petzal. “The American public — and the gun-owning public; especially the gun-owning public — would be better off without the hardcore military arms, which puts the average sportsman in a real dilemma”

I’m guessing that since then, Mr. Petzal has changed his mind and that is one reason for his entry. A lot can change in 13 years. Also, the comments are interesting in that there is a little Fudd v. Gun Nut battle brewing. But listen up, gun nuts:

Don’t get your fucking panties in a bunch and get all boycott happy with Mr. Petzal. We need to educate and convince. Not go on witch hunts that hurt our cause. Or persimmon is right, we are hypersensitive bedwetters.

Stand down, men.

12 Responses to “Careful, you might get Zumboed”

  1. Sebastian Says:

    I totally agree. If we can’t accept that people can be persuaded and change their minds, we might as well start selling off the contents of our safe now. If the internet had existed when I was younger, you might be able to dig up statements by me in support of the War on Drugs. I’ve done a complete 180 degree turn on that topic, and now cruise quite quickly in the opposite direction.

    Some people we will never reach because of their prejudices, but a lot of people have just never thought about the issue a certain way, and been made to understand the nature of the political minefield we’re navigating as a community.

  2. David Codrea Says:

    No witch hunt, just the facts. Read Petzal’s defense of Zumbo, likening his critics to mental patients. He’s the one who inserted himself into this, and I’m providing evidence for some of the response comments initiated on his blog.

    I’m disappointed that you would characterize this as a “witch hunt.” We deserve to know who in the opinion-making gun community has advocated what.

    This guy was instrumental in helping shape opinions in the gun community that paved the way for the ’94 ban, and he ought to answer for that with a full admission, apology and explanation of what he has done since then to repair the damage. “Guessing” that he has done so doesn’t cut it.

    It’s not time to stand down, Uncle. It’s time to stand up and learn who the compromisers in our midst are–particularly when they have a national forum at their disposal to disssminate their opinions.

    Please don’t discourage shining a light on this. What we do with the facts once they’ve been brought to light is a matter for another debate, but we deserve to know the truth. Why not help uncover it, instead of telling us to back off?

  3. SayUncle Says:

    David, I’m not saying you’re on a witch hunt. I’m saying let’s not turn this into one.

    And I didn’t discourage shining a light. I shined a light by bringing it up.

    There are more important fronts to fight on.

  4. David Codrea Says:

    True.

    Fortunately, we’re capable of multi-tasking.

  5. Steve Ramsey Says:

    On the question of whether we should be reactionary:

    It’s more than simply favoring one gun over another, one sport over another. It’s vastly more than simply proclaiming preferance.

    People like Petzal and Zumbo portray me as a terrorist, a mental defective, A small penis’d danger to society, or at very least a selfish ego maniac.

    The worst we had managed prior was to compare them to a doltish, speech impared and well loved cartoon charachter.

    It’s personal now, and has been for a long time.

    It’s not up to me to educate them, to convice them, or to sway them. Any firearms or hunting enthusiast with any sense at all instinctivly knows that the “my gun good, yours bad” arguement is simply a lie. Therefore, you cannot be misguided.

    All the statistics and all the factual information in the world breezes right by anti gun idiologs, and it’s no different with Zumbo and Petzal. There is no intelectual means by which to reverse such closed mindedness. They tink (thought) themselves immune. The only answer is to remove them from any large scale potential to influence those not well versed in the debate. A method has now been stumbled upon to do it, and it should be done.

    If those subject to the wrath of the law abiding gun owner want to avoid such action, then it is THEY who should be trying to convince ME that they were wrong.

    I have seen no statistic, but I’ll hazard a guess, one that has a high liklihood of truthiness about it: More people killed each year in hunting accidents each year that with firearms on the ban list? Anyone?

    And after achiving pariah status in the shooting community, should any of the wind up being trotted out on a leash by the Brady campaign, so be it.

    “Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out”.

  6. markm Says:

    Steve, I don’t know of a source comparing hunting accidents to the numbers murdered with banned firearms, but to my knowledge the latter numbers have never been out of single digits per year.

  7. retro Says:

    For another point of view…

    http://themartialist.com/0207/zumbo.htm

  8. Captain Holly Says:

    I don’t really want to get into the middle of a bloodly civil war between the “Fudds” and the “Yahoos”, and up until today I tried to avoid using the term “Fudd” because as a hunter, I could be described as one.

    But after having read some of the comments at the F&S blog, I’m going to start. “Fudd” in my mind refers to someone like Zumbo, who is so ignorant of the Second Amendment, and so smug in his own little world that he stabs his brothers in the back in order to promote his own interests.

    I agree that we shouldn’t get into petty arguments about who should have drained the swamp while up to our asses in Gun Control Alligators, and I also agree that we should try to politely persuade as many of these people as possible.

    But at the same time, we shouldn’t overlook the fact that on the issue of Assault Weapons these people are no different in their positions than the Bradys, and we should no more compromise with them than we should compromise with Chuck Schumer. I hate to go all Sith Lord on you, but with the AW ban you’re either with us or against us.

    BTW, if you want an insight into Fudd thinking, go to F&S’s site and click on their “Top 50 Guns of All Time” feature.

  9. Captain Holly Says:

    Clarification: When I said “but with the AW ban you’re either with us or against us”, I meant that in generic terms and not addressing anyone here specifically.

  10. drstrangegun Says:

    Oh my god. Go check out the .50 hunting story on the front page of field and stream’s web site.

    Half the responses in comments are from weak-kneed putzes who want the 50 banned.

    Field and Stream may as well be Yard and Pool.

  11. SayUncle » Petzal responds Says:

    […] Good enough for me. As I said, stand down. […]

  12. DirtCrashr Says:

    “Parking-lot and Culvert” Dear Editor, what sort of bait should I use for the “brown-trout” in the drainage-ditch out back? Ed: it comes in rolls, you can get a 12-pack at Costco…