# Hunter Dispute Turns Deadly...Argument for Gun Control?



## Makalakumu (Nov 22, 2004)

This article made me physically sick.  This happened close to my home.  Rice Lake, WI is only 90 miles south of here.



> Five dead in deer hunting dispute
> Alleged gunman arrested after fight over tree stand
> 
> The Associated Press
> ...



Are these types of tragedies becoming more common?  Would more gun control measures prevent these types of things from occuring?  What can be done to cut the occurence of these types of tragedies?


----------



## TigerWoman (Nov 22, 2004)

I heard about this...all over the news in Minn.  Really sickening.  How you could you give a mental test to a person wanting a gun license?  Would those that wanted to hunt anyway, just get there gun and go, so would it really stop the wackos?  And then it is so easy to buy a gun, own a gun.  This weekend there was one of those lovely gun shows in a nearby town. Yes, I think there should be more gun control. Is there even a required "course" to take to be able to own a gun?  Glad my family doesn't hunt. TW


----------



## Lisa (Nov 22, 2004)

First off... I am deeply saddened for those who died and send condolences for the families of the victems.

 Secondly, I am sickened by the event.  I sit here somewhat frozen while my hubby is out in the bush hunting right now.

 Thirdly, I hope the man responsible is punished thoroughly for his actions and hopefully the entire story will come out soon.

 And about gun control...I think we need to control those that can obtain the guns and legislate it so that if the gun is used in a criminal activity that the person who handled the gun gets the highest punishment possible.

 I think TGace said it best in another thread (apologies if I am misquoting someone)  Guns don't load and levitate on their own to shoot and kill/harm someone.  Legislation needs to be focused on the person using the gun illegally.  There are many, thousands of law abiding gun enthusiasts ranging from hunters to sport oriented people.

 If and when further gun control legislation is introduced lets hope it doesn't become the same fiasco it has up here in Canada with gun registration costing the taxpayers in excess of $250 million or more.  It has yet to solve a crime.  

 This man seems somewhat disturbed to do something like that and you can't legislate against insanity.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 22, 2004)

Gun control will not stop these types of things.

Comomn sense, courtesy and sportman-like conduct are what were lacking here.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 22, 2004)

Here is an article from our local paper...



> Five killed in hunt dispute
> SHOOTINGS: Authorities arrest a St. Paul man after the incident that also left three people injured.
> BY SAM COOK
> NEWS TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
> ...



Take a look at some of the passages.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 22, 2004)

These in particular...



> When Vang was arrested, he was carrying an SKS assault rifle and was out of ammunition, authorities said.





> Wisconsin's firearms deer hunting season began Saturday and will continue through Nov. 28. About 600,000 hunters are expected to go afield.
> 
> Word of the incident spread quickly through nearby communities and across the state.
> 
> "It's a stunning deal," Stan Lindow, chief of the Birchwood Fire Department, said Sunday evening. "A lot of guys are talking about not going out hunting for a while. I don't know if that'll happen or not."





> Disputes among hunters over property boundaries and hunting spots are not uncommon, said Fred Strand, Wisconsin DNR wildlife manager in Superior.
> 
> "They're not uncommon, but most of them, obviously, get resolved in a much more humane manner than this," Strand said.
> 
> He was not aware of any other dispute that had escalated into gunfire.


----------



## raedyn (Nov 22, 2004)

I don't know much about hunting, so someone please tell me - are assault rifles _normally_ used when hunting deer?


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 22, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I don't know much about hunting, so someone please tell me - are assault rifles _normally_ used when hunting deer?



Are we SURE he was there to hunt DEER?


----------



## OUMoose (Nov 22, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I don't know much about hunting, so someone please tell me - are assault rifles _normally_ used when hunting deer?


Of course!  Why, I'm suprised they haven't authorized fully armored vehicles for hunting these dangerous and often quite deadly deer.  

/anti-hunting sarcasm off


----------



## Lisa (Nov 22, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I don't know much about hunting, so someone please tell me - are assault rifles _normally_ used when hunting deer?


 This is a small caliber rifle if I am not mistaken.  It is not common to use these in Canada but I am not sure about the states.  Could someone please tell me if they are?  I will have to check but here in Canada they could be considered a restricted weapon depending on the size of the clip.

 As for "was he there to Deer hunt?"  Who knows, from what I understand they don't even know who shot at who first.  Gues we will have to wait and see.


----------



## raedyn (Nov 22, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Are we SURE he was there to hunt DEER?


Well, that's kinda why I was asking. If an assault rifle is typically used while hunting, then it's reasonable to assume that he was hunting and umm... snapped or something. But if this isn't a usual hunting weapon, then I'd question his motives.
So seriously, do hunters often use assault rifles?

from dictionary.com


> * assault rifle *-_n_.1)Any of vaious automatic or semi automatic rifles dsigned for individual use in combat. 2) any of the automatic rifles or semiautomatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use


This is just a wide-eyed city girl not knowing what the hell we are talking about and wanting to understand better. I'm trying to avoid jumping to knee-jerk conclusions. So please, educate me.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 22, 2004)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> Of course! Why, I'm suprised they haven't authorized fully armored vehicles for hunting these dangerous and often quite deadly deer.
> 
> /anti-hunting sarcasm off


First off, there is no such thing as an 'assault weapon.'  Any weapon you use to assault people is an assault weapon.  That particular tag is a popularization of either a marketing or journalistic/political phrase.

As long as I have a fire arm that meets the legal limits of ammo capacity, length, stock...and what ever limitations are in place it doesn't matter if I carry an SKS, AK, M16 ("COLT SPORTER") or a Marlin lever action.  For rifle, open sight hunting, an 'assault weapon' would have great sights for open field or running shots.

Now, that rant aside.  I do think that there might be some other evidence coming out later that would make it clear that this isn't only a 'hunting location argument' - either the guy was whacked out, coked up or there was some purpose/intent to the meeting.


----------



## Adept (Nov 22, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I don't know much about hunting, so someone please tell me - are assault rifles _normally_ used when hunting deer?


 Sure, why not? In all seriousness, an AK47 makes a decent close-range deer gun. It's a powerful slug, accurate enough at close range, rugged and tough enough that it can be dropped in the mud without preventing you from firing, an all round decent gun. No one in their right mind would fire on fully automatic at a deer. Your accuracy would be ruined, and you would use too much ammo.

 But regardless of that, the rifle in question is not a 30-rounds-a-second sickle clip assault rifle. It was a semi-automatic (one trigger squeeze fires one round) rifle. A very different, and very common beast.

 I feel for the families in question. This is a horrible thing to have happen to anyone. But this guy sounds mentally unbalanced, and I do not believe any relevant firearm legislation would have made a difference to this situation.


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 22, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I don't know much about hunting, so someone please tell me - are assault rifles _normally_ used when hunting deer?


Hey Raedyn, how are you. I actually just got back from deer hunting here in SASK. I'm just breaking for lunch, and plan on heading back out, now on to your question. You are allowed a semi auto weapon with only 4 rounds in the magazine, and 1 in the chamber. Or a single shot bolt action like I'm using today. 

Nalia, actually a 7.62 round is a bigger round, like posted earlier is used in a AK-47, which is a very deadly weapon with massive stopping power. I personally use a Winchester 300 MAG, which uses a 7.62, and I am yet to see a deer get up after hitting it with that round. A 308 uses the same caliber just a smaller casing, which in turn makes it have a little less kick, but still excelent stopping power. If you are comparing it to the likes of a 50 cal, then yes it is a reletively smaller round.

OU Moose, Just curiously what do you have against hunting? I personally am a hunter, and I eat all the meat that I kill. If I don't need it all then I give it to the food bank. I am against people who kill just for the antlers, or poach dozens of animals for profit. I actually have only killed one buck in my lifetime, and it was pathetic. It's not about the prize to me it is about the sport, and the food. I'm not trying to stir the pot or anything just curious on your thoughts.

I personally get frustrated of the stereotyping of the hunters. The majority of hunters are safe and have been through a Hunter education class to impliment saftey. Who knows, maybe this was an extremist who is so anti-hunting that he went off killing people to give the hunters a worse name.(Just speculating, and probably not the case)

More on topic I think this is absolutly terrible, and he should be punished to the full extent of the law.

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## OUMoose (Nov 22, 2004)

Rynocerous said:
			
		

> OU Moose, Just curiously what do you have against hunting? I personally am a hunter, and I eat all the meat that I kill. If I don't need it all then I give it to the food bank. I am against people who kill just for the antlers, or poach dozens of animals for profit. I actually have only killed one buck in my lifetime, and it was pathetic. It's not about the prize to me it is about the sport, and the food. I'm not trying to stir the pot or anything just curious on your thoughts.



I grew up in a very redneck community, and all too often I'd see people go hunting just for the sake of hunting, or because it was some macho thing to do.  We actually got days off in High School for deer season and duck season.  I don't have a problem honestly with people who actually use what they hunt (btw, venison sausage is awesome!), but the (explative deleted) good'ol boys who go out with the largest and most powerful firearm they can carry just for the sake of going out irritate me.  In my personal experience, hunters like Ryno are few these days, but YMMV.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Nov 22, 2004)

Rynocerous said:
			
		

> I personally am a hunter, and I eat all the meat that I kill. If I don't need it all then I give it to the food bank. I am against people who kill just for the antlers, or poach dozens of animals for profit. I actually have only killed one buck in my lifetime, and it was pathetic. It's not about the prize to me it is about the sport, and the food. I'm not trying to stir the pot or anything just curious on your thoughts.
> 
> I personally get frustrated of the stereotyping of the hunters. The majority of hunters are safe and have been through a Hunter education class to impliment saftey.


I think this is, as with so many topics/hobbies/etc the problem of a handful of idiots, punks, whatever, who give the rest of the group a bad name.  

Kudos to you - I tend to admire those who hunt and eat their kills, rather than the trophy hunters - another table-slapping contest with animal heads, it drives me crazy.


----------



## Lisa (Nov 22, 2004)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> I grew up in a very redneck community, and all too often I'd see people go hunting just for the sake of hunting, or because it was some macho thing to do. We actually got days off in High School for deer season and duck season. I don't have a problem honestly with people who actually use what they hunt (btw, venison sausage is awesome!), but the (explative deleted) good'ol boys who go out with the largest and most powerful firearm they can carry just for the sake of going out irritate me. In my personal experience, hunters like Ryno are few these days, but YMMV.


 OUMoose,

 I totally understand where you are coming from.  My husband and his Dad have hunted together for years.  We eat what ever they hunt.  In our area many hunters from across North America come to hunt purely for the "treasure" as opposed to the feeding of their families.  About 5 years ago my father in law shot a rather large Buck.  When word of his trophy got out into the community, he had a few phone calls from non local hunters offering him cash for the head so they could take it home and claim to have shot it themselves.  My father in law had a few not so nice words to tell every single one of them 

 But back on topic.

 upnorthkyosa asked:



> Are these types of tragedies becoming more common?  Would more gun control measures prevent these types of things from occuring?  What can be done to cut the occurence of these types of tragedies


 Education, Education, Education!  Educating our youth on firearms.  Hunter's safety courses on how to handle weapons properly.  Making every hunter, gun handler, etc. responsible for the safe keeping and usage of their firearm and most of all making sure that those that use them improperly and violently see the full extent of the law.  That IMHO is what needs to be done.  

 I will get off my soapbox now... please continue.

 :soapbox:


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 22, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I think this is, as with so many topics/hobbies/etc the problem of a handful of idiots, punks, whatever, who give the rest of the group a bad name.
> 
> Kudos to you - I tend to admire those who hunt and eat their kills, rather than the trophy hunters - another table-slapping contest with animal heads, it drives me crazy.


Cheers, nice to hear.  Anyways I'm finished lunch and heading back out.  Thanks for posting back so soon.

Ryan


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 22, 2004)

On to the discussion at hand...

Gun control will not stop incidences like these. If that guy had an SKS (I have one myself so trust me on this, I doubt your hunting deer with a 39mm bullet), then he wasn't there to hunt deer. And guess what...if guns were banned, he'd still be able to get an SKS or something like it on the street illegally.

Gun control only prevents law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. If those who tragically died had their wits and luck about them, they'd at least have had the option of shooting back and stopping the assaulter from continuing his rampage. If guns were "controlled," then they wouldn't have even had that option.

You want an answer for preventing incidences like these? Crime control is the answer, not gun control. I would say that you actually make it easier and less intrussive for the law abiding citizens to own guns, and work towards removing the guns from criminals by cracking down on the black market. The more intrusive gun laws are on law abiding citizens, the more it propigates an unregulated black market where criminals can get their hands on these things.

My 2 cents...

 :mp5:  :ultracool


----------



## Adept (Nov 22, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> If that guy had an SKS (I have one myself so trust me on this, I doubt your hunting deer with a 39mm bullet)


 I'm not real flash on my gun calibre conversions, but isn't the 7.62 the same as a 30.06? The 30.06 is a very popular calibre for deer hunting in Australia, but then I suppose a Sambar is quite a bit bigger than a Whitetail.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 22, 2004)

Adept said:
			
		

> I'm not real flash on my gun calibre conversions, but isn't the 7.62 the same as a 30.06? The 30.06 is a very popular calibre for deer hunting in Australia, but then I suppose a Sambar is quite a bit bigger than a Whitetail.


Deer rifles, in calibers, will vary from .22 (too small for my blood) to 30.06 and I have even heard/met hunters that work with .50 cal pistols.....YIKES!

We are limited to shotguns around here in Western NY but I know guys who hunt in the 'dacks areas and use .223 cal(5.56mm) all the way up to .308 cal(7.62 mm - the SKS is similar to that.).

These are valid deer rifle caliber rounds for open country, but a military style rifle isn't all that common for hunting.  The majority of outdoors/sportsman that hunt with rifles favor either levers/bolt actions/sport autos.  Just look in the Field and Stream mags or some other hunting mag for examples of the norm.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 22, 2004)

Double post, sorry guys.  System went on a glitch and didn't look like the post hit.


----------



## Adept (Nov 22, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Deer rifles, in calibers, will vary from .22


 Good lord, what on earth would you hunt with a .22? Even Hog Deer are too big for that!



> These are valid deer rifle caliber rounds for open country, but a military style rifle isn't all that common for hunting. The majority of outdoors/sportsman that hunt with rifles favor either levers/bolt actions/sport autos. Just look in the Field and Stream mags or some other hunting mag for examples of the norm.


 Yeah, I havent been out in a while but when I go I use a .270 bolt action for the deer, or a 30.30 lever action on the pigs/goats.

 I dont know if the rifle in question is military style. The first article just says semi-auto, while the second article just says assault rifle, which could mean anything.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 22, 2004)

I'm not a fan of trophy hunting either...I used to hunt but because of lack of time I don't anymore. Whatever we shot we ate. The bones went to the dogs for food and the dear skins went to a tannery(given to the tannery, we never really wanted them back.) Every now and then the horns are cut off or a head is mounted but it is not for the trophy in this area...it is for the hunt.

I sometimes wonder what this world is coming to when people can kill each other of such stupid differences. A tree stand is nothing to fret over. I don't even use one. I walk....and walk somemore...or pick a spot and sit on a fallen tree or something.

What is this world coming too?


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 22, 2004)

I don't use an assult rifle by the way when I hunt. I use a 243 most of the time. More reason for an assult weapons ban...it is not taking hunting rifles away but the weapons that have proven to kill more poeple in hate crimes than other rifles.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 22, 2004)

BlueDragon1981 said:
			
		

> I don't use an assult rifle by the way when I hunt. I use a 243 most of the time. More reason for an assult weapons ban...it is not taking hunting rifles away but the weapons that have proven to kill more poeple in hate crimes than other rifles.



Yea, but I don't think the second ammendment was put in so we could all be hunters and sportsmen.

Weapons at the time of the Constitution could be used for hunting, but were also for keeping the peace, if you will. (Assault weapons, whatever those are).

Banning weapons will never stop hate crimes, whatever those are.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 22, 2004)

Nalia said:
			
		

> This is a small caliber rifle if I am not mistaken.  It is not common to use these in Canada but I am not sure about the states.  Could someone please tell me if they are?  I will have to check but here in Canada they could be considered a restricted weapon depending on the size of the clip.
> 
> As for "was he there to Deer hunt?"  Who knows, from what I understand they don't even know who shot at who first.  Gues we will have to wait and see.



The weapon used was a Chinese made SKS.  It's got a 7.62 mm barrel.  The perp was using a 20 round clip.  I'm not sure if this is legal or illegal now that the "assault weapon" ban expired.  The old rule was that you could hunt with four rounds and one in the chamber.  

I personally hunt with a 7mm mag bolt action.  It's a nice peice and I don't need more then one shot.  I've heard of people using SKS's before, but I can't see why someone would need something like that.


----------



## Adept (Nov 22, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The weapon used was a Chinese made SKS. It's got a 7.62 mm barrel. The perp was using a 20 round clip.


 Is that legal? I'm assuming no...


----------



## Tgace (Nov 22, 2004)

And this weapon differs from an "innocent" looking 30.06 semi-auto hunting rifle how? 

The guys advantage was being up in a tree stand where he gets a better angle for a shot, its easier to get around any cover the victims could try to use, and he was probably tougher to spot if he was in camo. and in the woods. He should have been a sitting duck up in that tree, Im betting he had concealment on his side. Sometimes I cant even find my own tree stand when I was the one who put it up.

He probably could have had the same results with about any weapon.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 22, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The guys advantage was being up in a tree stand where he gets a better angle for a shot, its easier to get around any cover the victims could try to use, and he was probably tougher to spot if he was in camo. and in the woods. He should have been a sitting duck up in that tree, Im betting he had concealment on his side.



Soemone ought to check the PeTA website. These guys sound like they're getting serious!


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 22, 2004)

Adept said:
			
		

> I'm not real flash on my gun calibre conversions, but isn't the 7.62 the same as a 30.06? The 30.06 is a very popular calibre for deer hunting in Australia, but then I suppose a Sambar is quite a bit bigger than a Whitetail.


Yes in fact a 300, 30 odd 6, and 308 all use 7.62.

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 22, 2004)

Pop quiz kids.

Which is the Assult Rifle, and which is the Sporting Target Rifle?











Answer? The Rifle on the Top is an SKS "assault rilfe" And the Rifle on the Bottom is a Ruger 10/22LR Target Rifle with a muzzleite stock.

I would hardly call that SKS an "Assult Rifle"... especially since the Kalashnikov line was developed to be the Soviet assult rifle because the SKS they were replacing failed to perform up to the military standards of an Assault Rifle in Russia durring the war... Its just a Cool catch phrase for the Media to use whenever a gun is used in a shooting.



> Ironically, perhaps, the first weapon chambered for the M43 cartridge
> was not a selective-fire assault rifle but a self-loading carbine, the
> Simonov-designed Samozaridnya Karabina Simonova Obrazets 1945g, or
> SKS.


Note that the SKS is DESIGNATED a SELF LOADING CARBINE, not an ASSAULT RILFE. (Source: Sources:  Jane's Infantry Weapons, 1975,  Small Arms of the World, 1983)


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 22, 2004)

Adept said:
			
		

> Is that legal? I'm assuming no...


Yes, it is.


----------



## Ceicei (Nov 22, 2004)

Techno,

 Thank you for that pictorial quiz. It will help clear up the misconceptions many people have about rifles. My husband owns a beautiful (and fun) SKS.   I wish we could have made these two pictures into billboards to educate the people with your question at the top and the answer on the bottom.

   - Ceicei


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 22, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The guys advantage was being up in a tree stand where he gets a better angle for a shot, its easier to get around any cover the victims could try to use, and he was probably tougher to spot if he was in camo. and in the woods. He should have been a sitting duck up in that tree, Im betting he had concealment on his side. Sometimes I cant even find my own tree stand when I was the one who put it up.



I was thinking the same thing.  That guy should have been a sitting duck...I can imagine the confusion though.  The lack of communication might have facilitated a situation where people kept coming in and getting picked off.  Reports are circulating, though, that the guy was chasing after the hunters and killing them at close range.  Many of the victims were hit several times.  This would seem to corroborate this story.  I suppose if its true, then an "assault weapon" might have made this process easier.


----------



## raedyn (Nov 22, 2004)

Thank you, Techno. That answers my questions very well.

The top picture there is what I picture as a hunting rifle, and I don't feel upset that a hunter was carrying it. I'll make a point not to over-react when I hear reports of "assault rifles" - which conjures up images like the second picture you posted. Again, thank you.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 22, 2004)

Almost any weapon the hunters had could have been as lethal as the shooters. Im betting this was due to ambush rather than any kind of "weapon superiority".


----------



## Tgace (Nov 22, 2004)

> About 20 shots were fired but it was unclear if any of the hunters had fired at the suspect or who might have shot first, Dep. Zeigle said. *There was just one gun among the eight people killed or wounded*, he said.



Theres the real weapons discrepancy. WTF? 1 gun among 8 deer hunters?


----------



## Ceicei (Nov 22, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Theres the real weapons discrepancy. WTF? 1 gun among 8 deer hunters?


 Maybe family members of hunters? At least here in Utah, hunters sometimes bring their families along and they (those who don't hunt) usually stay at the campsites.  News articles do not usually provide the full story anyway.

  - Ceicei


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 22, 2004)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> Techno,
> 
> Thank you for that pictorial quiz. It will help clear up the misconceptions many people have about rifles. My husband owns a beautiful (and fun) SKS.   I wish we could have made these two pictures into billboards to educate the people with your question at the top and the answer on the bottom.
> 
> - Ceicei



Yes...although with my 15 round banana clip, it looks alot less like a hunting rifle.

I agree...there are a lot of misconceptions regarding "assult rifles," even by me, an owner of one, who wouldn't think of using such a large caliber bullet to hunt deer; but I stand corrected...people do hunt deer with SKS's and AK-47's.


----------



## psi_radar (Nov 22, 2004)

First off, I'm a hunter (eat what I kill, squirrel, elk, deer, or whatever) and a gun enthusiast, and this incident makes me absolutely sick. It's a hunter's worst nightmare, as well as a real knock to those of us who use guns responsibly. (BTW, using a .22 to deer hunt is extremely irresponsible.)

In most states it's illegal to shoot a semi-automatic rifle with more than 4 shots in the clip and one in the breech while hunting. The SKS usually has an internal 10-shot magazine (non-detachable) but can be modified to accept detachable mags. So this guy was definitely on the wrong side of the law if he shot 20 continuous rounds.

The SKS is not an ideal deer hunting rifle. As a weapon, they aren't very well made or particularly accurate, using stamped mass produced parts. 

Overall, "assault weapons" by their very nature are compromises. Military research has indicated it's more effective for soldiers to be able to put lots of bullets into the air rather than squeezing off single shots accurately at large distances. Therefore, troops need to carry lots of ammunition so the weapons are designed to use more compact, less powerful rounds. As a result, the SKS 7.62x39 mm round isn't as powerful as sporting rounds of similar caliber. For instance, my 30.06 bolt-action is accurate up until about 400 yards as opposed to the SKS or AK-47's 200--they're about the same size bullet but have less of a charge pushing them. So, some might argue the deer rifle is more deadly, it just doesn't have the same rate of fire.

Borrowing from "The Jerk" I'd say this was a matter of a defective person rather than a failure of gun laws. The ban that was just lifted would not have kept this individual from purchasing this firearm. As for "those gun shows" I just went to one over the weekend and met a whole lot of really nice people including law enforcement personnel (good line of work to get into if you like guns), and just happened to purchase a Romanian SAR-1 and sundry other equipment. They had background checks at the tables and went through all necessary legal procedures--the same routine as if I went to a sporting goods store.

What can we do about something like this? On an individual level, probably not much besides things we learn in martial arts. If you come upon an armed person in the woods, be wary and respectful, and if they get belligerent, don't challenge them. Keep your head, leave and hunt somewhere else or call the cops if it's your property. I was hunting on the continental divide in October and was able to get cell reception the whole time. Ran into other hunters on a number of occasions, all were nice but there's definitely a level of mutual respect and wariness when you know everyone's carrying a loaded firearm. In terms of banning guns, they're already too pervasive in our society to not believe they're here to stay.


----------



## SenseiBear (Nov 23, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Almost any weapon the hunters had could have been as lethal as the shooters. Im betting this was due to ambush rather than any kind of "weapon superiority".




from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6551094/


> One of the men approached the intruder and asked him to leave, as Crotteau and the others in the cabin hopped on their all-terrain vehicles and headed to the scene.
> 
> The suspect got down from the deer stand, walked 40 yards, fiddled with his rifle. He took the scope off his rifle, he turned and he opened fire on the group, Meier said.
> 
> ...


----------



## psi_radar (Nov 23, 2004)

In its unaltered form, with five or less shells in the breech and the magazine, an SKS is legal for hunting. There's some spin here; there's no way that the perp could hunt with a full banana-clip legally. Be aware that the press will take this case and run with it; if it bleeds, it leads. The words "assault rifle" cause a visceral reaction in a lot of people, particulary the uninformed. What do you think of when "assault rifle" is coined? Perhaps some people in turbans firing them in the air on full automatic, shouting ayayayayayay allah ackbar--a la True Lies? 

These people are preying on your fears. The Maryland snipers used a .223 assault rifle, but never fired more than two rounds at a time. Sick but true, their accuracy and effectiveness would have been better with a bolt-action .308 sport rifle. This is a horrific incident, no doubt, but let's let the blame lie at the foot of the person who pulled the trigger, not the gun.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 23, 2004)

One of the things that we have going on in MN and WI is the immigration of a large number of southeast asians.  The last of the refugee camps are closing over there and those people have nowhere to go.  Like anybody else, most of this population are great hardworking people and I would welcome them as my neighbor any day...especially for the dinner parties!  Yet there are always a sprinkling of unsavory characters that come over too and we have no idea what these guys have done previously.  So, basically, the worst guy in one of those camps can come over and buy a gun on a "clean record"...

In this case, Chai Vang has lived in this country for twelve years.  He has a family with six children.  He served in the military and has a criminal record with a few misdomeaners.  He also has a history of domestic violence with the police being called to his house several times...no action was taken.  Should Mr. Vang have been allowed to buy a gun?

Is there any test that can be administered to weed out people with this kind of background (I'm not talking about race now)?

Perhaps any measure we attempt will be worthless.  Maybe the price for our 2nd amendment rights is to put up with these few and far between incidents.


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 23, 2004)

Well, I go by what a very wise lady once told me... "Never believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see".  Even though I know that these people died, I can't believe anything I hear until the official report is let out.  

On the topic of outlawing weapons, or a more strict gun control.

I quote a bumber sticker here -"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 23, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In this case, Chai Vang has lived in this country for twelve years. He has a family with six children. He served in the military and has a criminal record with a few misdomeaners. He also has a history of domestic violence with the police being called to his house several times...no action was taken. Should Mr. Vang have been allowed to buy a gun?
> 
> Is there any test that can be administered to weed out people with this kind of background (I'm not talking about race now)?


No I don't think that he sould had been allowed to by a firearm. I believe that there should be a more secure background check before any average Joe can go buy a firearm. Although it also comes down to the fact that if the person really wants it they can go buy it illegally on the street.

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 23, 2004)

A sixth person has died from this shooting.

Concerning the lack of weapons in possession of the victims. During the first round of shooting, apparently the victims contacted those in the hunting cabin via radio. Those in the hunting cabin responded to the radio call for help without their weapons.

The deceased are: 
Robert Crotteau - 42
Joey Crotteau - 20
Al Laski - 43
Mark Roidt - 28
Jessica Willers - 27
Denny Drew - 55​


----------



## raedyn (Nov 23, 2004)

In any case, this is tremendously sad. I wonder what the heck was wrong with that dude that he killed those people!


----------



## SenseiBear (Nov 23, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> In any case, this is tremendously sad. I wonder what the heck was wrong with that dude that he killed those people!


and that is the issue.  By looking at the gun, we are not considering the right issue, which is: 





> ...what the heck was wrong with that dude that he killed those people!


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 23, 2004)

As far as I can speculate, the problem is thus: no matter how many restrictions are in place, someone will always slip through the system.  Anyone can buy a car.  They must take specialized training and pass an exam to drive it.  There is no guarantee that they won't get behind the wheel and drive over people intentionally, yet, we cannot outlaw cars because of that possibility.  There are always going to be the few who abuse the priviledge.  All we can do is punish them appropriately, and carry on. 

The misuse by the few should not become a punishment on the many.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 23, 2004)

Adept said:
			
		

> Good lord, what on earth would you hunt with a .22? Even Hog Deer are too big for that!


Not my cup of tea either but there are some who think that it is a challenge....I say it is a waste of time. It isn't illegal to use, just not a good call. Cruel to the animal (which is already going to get hurt) and makes for more time tracking/working.

If I want to raise the challenge bar, I'll fill my Bow stamp out again....

On the issue of the SKS and legallity. I believe that the weapon itself was legal. Since it used an external magazine, the capacity of 20 rounds might be illegal. I know with sport shot guns they have plugs that you can/must use in the tube magazine to stay within seasonal/game capacity limits as well.

This is all looking fishy in everyway.

As far as gun control.  In NYS there is a law on the books that you can not get a pistol if you have a certain type of record or have been charged with domestic violence.

His status as a naturized citizen should not be a limitation.  The fact that he was never charged with domestic violence is the problem for limiting his access to firearms.

I have to agree that no matter what the tiger on paper is, it comes down to enforcement and punitive actions.  If the funding and goals don't support enforcement it will be easier to slip through the cracks no matter what the law says.


----------



## psi_radar (Nov 23, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> ... So, basically, the worst guy in one of those camps can come over and buy a gun on a "clean record"...
> 
> ...  He also has a history of domestic violence with the police being called to his house several times...no action was taken.  Should Mr. Vang have been allowed to buy a gun?
> 
> Is there any test that can be administered to weed out people with this kind of background (I'm not talking about race now)?



On the form you fill out to buy a gun, one of the questions directly relates to whether or not you're involved in a domestic violence dispute, but basically that's just applying the honor system. If Vang's wife had gone ahead and charged him with domestic violence, then most likely he would not have been able to purchase a weapon. But there's always a way to get a gun. As G. Gordon Liddy once said, "As a convicted felon, I am unable to purchase a firearm. However, Mrs. Liddy owns 27."

There's also more to this story, I'm sure. Why did a whole bunch of people race out on ATVs to the site before trouble started? Sounds like they may have been stirring some up. I'm not defending Vang, but as usual I think there's a little more to it than is revealed in the newspapers. Sounds like there's some tension between the Hmong people and the caucasions out there.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 23, 2004)

In Massachusetts, is soemone files a restraining order on you, you cannot keep your own firearms.

You may also lose your right to own a firearm in MAssachusetts, which may affect you if you move to another state, for disobeying a fireman.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 23, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Maybe the price for our 2nd amendment rights is to put up with these few and far between incidents.



No, No, and No. Don't confuse where the blame lies.

This is the price for having the technology to make guns, something that we can't reverse now that we have them. Just like the invention of the nuclear bomb has prices that go along with it that we can't reverse.

The blame lies in the technology and not our second amendment rights or lack of gun restrictions. This is because the more restrictive gun laws become, the more this propigates a black market (similar to drugs, similar to alcahol during the prohibition), where criminals have free rein to get these things while law abiding citizens are now restricted from getting these things, and thus restricted from self-defense from these things.

The blame isn't 2nd amendment rights. The blame is on something we can't do anything about: technology.

So, what CAN we do? As I previously described, you make guns easier for law abiding citicens to get, and you spend your energies on cracking down on the black market and actual crime.

And yes, inevitably some will slip through the cracks; and hopefully good self-defense training and good law enforcement can do damage control when it does.

Paul


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 23, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> No, No, and No. Don't confuse where the blame lies.
> 
> This is the price for having the technology to make guns, something that we can't reverse now that we have them. Just like the invention of the nuclear bomb has prices that go along with it that we can't reverse.
> 
> ...



Good point, Paul.  I was thinking about education when I posted this.  I feel like education is probably the best we can do in this situation.  Good self defense education and good usage education would have helped in this situation.


----------



## Oak Bo (Nov 23, 2004)

Yup, education and some respect toward others.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 23, 2004)

From a CNN article.




> A hunter approached Vang to tell him he was on private property, and Vang started to leave as other hunters approached, the statement said. Vang said the hunters surrounded him, and some started calling him racial slurs.
> 
> Vang said he started walking away but looked back to see the first hunter point his rifle at him and then fire a shot that hit the ground 30 to 40 feet behind him, the statement said.
> 
> That's when Vang told investigators he started firing at the group, and some fell to the ground and others tried to run away, according to the statement.


"They drew First Blood" - John Rambo.


----------



## bignick (Nov 23, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> "They drew First Blood" - John Rambo.


If he was leaving the situation and was fired upon and instead of fleeing started to return fire he is at least partly responsible...it's hard to justify homicide in self defense when you had an oppurtunity to leave.  

On the same token, the hunters that supposedly fired upon him first would also be responsible...

time and the courts will determine the whole story...


----------



## raedyn (Nov 23, 2004)

Assuming this article is accurate, I believe this man reasonably felt threatened by the group that surrounded him. I do not know if this justifies him killing several of them - in particular the unarmed ones.


----------



## someguy (Nov 23, 2004)

I think it is evidence for people control.
Gun's are just a tool.  People are the problem.
Get rid of people and you have no problem.
Something wrong with this picture but I can't figure out what it is...
More seriously though.  There usually is more to the story than most peopel can ever know.  Before I would decide on anything I would have to know more for certian.


----------



## OULobo (Nov 23, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> If he was leaving the situation and was fired upon and instead of fleeing started to return fire he is at least partly responsible...it's hard to justify homicide in self defense when you had an oppurtunity to leave.
> 
> On the same token, the hunters that supposedly fired upon him first would also be responsible...
> 
> time and the courts will determine the whole story...



If he runs, he's running from many people with long range rifles and hunting experience. Looks to me like he would die tired. I wondered what the deal was with this story from the beginning. One guy plugs that many armed hunters and they don't take him. Something is fishy. This new light seems to add a little bit more. I'd like to pose as the devil's advocate and propose, 

After a few choice words from the miffed property owners who can't stand asians on thier land, Vang starts to leave. The "good ole boys" decide to have a little fun and take few shots at him to "make him dance a lil on his way out". He thinks they are trying to kill him and are just really bad shots (or he is blessed with luck). He knows if he runs from a large group of skilled hunters that are very familiar with the area and armed with high powered, long range rifles, he's just going to get picked off later. He dicides to take a chance at a face off. After he takes one out, he realizes that the rest aren't going to let him walk away standing or breathing, so he knows that he has to mop up. 

Again I want to re-iterate that I am phrasing things harshly for effect and that I haven't formed a full opinion about this incident yet. I only seek to show the other side and to point out things aren't always as they seem. I know I've jumped to quite a few conclusions and been burned in the past.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 23, 2004)

Hmmm..a report I heard said that only one of the victims was armed at the time. Then again the media isnt known for extreme accuracy.


----------



## raedyn (Nov 24, 2004)

That's a good way to put it, Tgace. "extreme accuracy" *giggle*


----------



## clockexit (Nov 24, 2004)

Why is this not a hate crime???Cordially, Howard


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 24, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> From a CNN article.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Considering the racial attitudes of the nearly all white population up here, this story could be plausible.  I live about an hour and a half away from where this incident took place...

I think its going to be hard for Mr. Vang to "prove" because the witnesses are all dead.  Yet, he shouldn't have to "prove" anything should he?  Good post, Michael.  I was wondering if that twist was going to appear.


----------



## raedyn (Nov 24, 2004)

*hate crime *_noun_*:* a crime that violates the victim's civil rights and that is motivated by hostility to the victim's race, religion, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender _Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law _(thanks to dictionary.com)


At this point, we have no evidence that Vang's motivation for killing these people was their race. (Which I assume is what you are talking about, clockexit) Infact, I'm guessing he's going to say that he acted in self-defence. Only time will tell if the courts buy this arguement or not.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 24, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Considering the racial attitudes of the nearly all white population up here, this story could be plausible. I live about an hour and a half away from where this incident took place...
> 
> I think its going to be hard for Mr. Vang to "prove" because the witnesses are all dead. Yet, he shouldn't have to "prove" anything should he? Good post, Michael. I was wondering if that twist was going to appear.


I do believe that there are surviving members of the first group attacked during the altercation. 

Thoughtfully, regardless of the sequence of events, Mr. Vang is going to have a difficult time justifying shooting the later arrivals, who apparently came from the hunting cabin unarmed. At some point, it seems to me, that the immediate danger had passed, there was no longer an imminent threat, at which time Mr. Vang should have lowered his weapon. 

Having used all of the ammunition in his possession does not speak well of control. If we was fired at, he had every right to return fire. It seems that he continued to shoot people beyond the point of self-defense.

Time will tell.


----------



## psi_radar (Nov 24, 2004)

I bet this story is going to evolve quite a bit; I believe the victims aren't as innocent as they'd like the authorities to believe. My predictions for possible complications: 

1) More shell casings or bullets will be found at the scene that were from other rifles other than the two already accounted for.

2) One of the surviving victims will crack under questioning and admit shots were fired at Vang. Others at the camp may admit to hiding weapons gathered from the scene. (one gun amongst at least six hunters, four of whom were in familial pairs? That's really odd.)

3) Vang will be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Vang was a former soldier for the US, who knows what he's seen or done. In addition, the Hmong people were often provided amnesty in the United States for fighting in a CIA-funded force in Laos. My bet is that he was employed as a child soldier, which is not uncommon for Southeast asians. Just a prediction, but it might explain why he "snapped" like he did--and was able to take out eight people by himself. 

None of this is based in fact, just me speculating. If they above was true, the story would make a bit more sense.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 24, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> I bet this story is going to evolve quite a bit; I believe the victims aren't as innocent as they'd like the authorities to believe. My predictions for possible complications:
> 
> .


This guy is not a 'local' in any way.  I am betting that this is going to come out as a combo of a 'Hatfield and MCoy' type feud that has been building up to this final explosion sprinkled with a little racism/pent up hostility.


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 26, 2004)

Until we hear the final story, after the court case, after all the media is done printing any hot tips that may or may not be true. We will get the closest thing to the truth without being there and in the people's minds that were there. Until then it is all speculation, and we can Hum, an Haw about what we think is the reason why he did it, but we will never know why unless he himself tells us. Saying that it is race related is reverse racism in a way. If this was a white man it wouldn't even be brought up. As soon as he is Asian, or black or hispanic we think that it is racism. This is not fair, even though I know we are speculating, but I feel that this just leads to people spreading the false word around. It's like when you hear a story and pass it down a line of ten people. At the end you have a story that has been twisted and added to, it is never the same as the original story. I just try to block out the media until the court's decision is made. I'm not trying to poke at anyone in particular, but to try to make the point that everyone in society adds to this.


Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## deadhand31 (Nov 27, 2004)

Ok, many things to touch on....
First, the widely used definition of an assualt rifle. I believe that if it meets two or three of the following conditions, it's considered an assualt rifle:

1. Flash surpressor
2. Ability to hold a high capacity magazine
3. Ability to go from semi-auto to single fire with a flick of a switch
4. Folding stock

The term "assault rifle" is something spun to create fear. After the ban was lifted, I remember seeing an advocate of the ban state that these weapons can fire up to 400 rounds a minute. I'd love to see a clip that big, and also what the fingers would look like after shooting that, considering 1 pull of the trigger can only fire 1 bullet. An assault rifle is no more deadly than any regular semi-auto rifle. Would the ban have prevented this tragedy? Doubtful. The guy had a 20 round clip, which is already illegal. He obviously didn't care about laws to begin with. I live in Wisconsin, so this story has been getting a lot of air time.  He also claims that he was threatened, and called a "gook". Right now, we do not know who fired first. However, as was stated before, there was only 1 gun among the eight victims. Several of the victims were shot in the back. I'm sorry, but only a drooling retard would believe that a shot in the back was self-defense. 

As for gun control working... well, consider a few points:

1. The city with the most restrictive gun control, Washington D.C., has the highest firearm homicide rate.
2. Every state that has enacted concealed carry laws has seen a drop not only in gun crime, but violent crimes like assault, rape, and armed robbery dropped too. 
3. A pro-gun group made posters for gun-free.org. It basically stated "Proud supporter of gun control. This is a gun-free home." Not one gun-free.org member took a poster. 
4. Several staunch gun-control supporters, like Chicago (another city that has a high murder rate with highly restrictive gun laws) mayor Richard Daley and Rosie O'Donnell, purchase armed body-guard protection. 

Just some food for thought.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 27, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> Ok, many things to touch on....
> First, the widely used definition of an assualt rifle. I believe that if it meets two or three of the following conditions, it's considered an assualt rifle:
> 
> 1. Flash surpressor
> ...


 NO.

 An assault rifle is... PLAIN AND SIMPLE... any weapon designed to fire MORE THAN ONE ROUND WITH A SINGLE PULL OF THE TRIGGER.

 PERIOD.

 Nothing else makes it an assault rilfe...

 And deadhand... SEMI AUTO does NOT mean it fires more than 1 round when you pull the trigger, it means the firearm cocks and loads the next round as it ejects the first.  Its still single fire.  If it fires more than 1 round... thats not SEMI AUTO, thats FULL AUTO.


----------



## deadhand31 (Nov 27, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> NO.
> 
> An assault rifle is... PLAIN AND SIMPLE... any weapon designed to fire MORE THAN ONE ROUND WITH A SINGLE PULL OF THE TRIGGER.



Sorry to tell you this, but fully automatic weapons have been regulated since the 1930's. The ban that was recently lifted had nothing to do with automatic weapons. The definition that I was stating was the kind of weapons that were "affected" by the ban. The SKS is not full auto. It's semi-auto. Yes, semi-auto loads another round as one is ejected, but it still equates to 1 pull=1 shot. 

What you consider an assualt rifle has been regulated for some time, and is STILL regulated. If a civilian is to legally own a full-auto or burst capable gun, they have to uphold a strict code. You need to obtain a federal license to own one (which isn't the easiest thing to do).  You also have to have the gun registered with the FBI, and agree to let them search your house at their convenience, whether you're there or not. If you plan on selling the gun, you also have to let the FBI know that you plan on it, and they have to approve the sale. 

The assault weapons ban used the conditions which I stated to define assualt weapons. It was a rather pointless law, because it didn't make owning, using, or selling the guns illegal. It only made importation illegal. The actual definition they used didn't really mean jack squat. Here's why...

1.Flash surpressor: This doesn't prevent anyone else from seeing the muzzle flash except for the person firing the gun. If a person looks down the barrel at night, and fires, the muzzle flash will blind them. Think of it like a camera flash at night.

2.Ability to hold a high capacity magazine: It's not hard to obtain a high capacity magazine for anything. People custom make them all the time.

3.Going from single fire to semi-auto: A semi-auto weapon is just as effective. 

4.Folding stock: Makes it easier to carry, and possibly conceal. A semi-auto pistol is easier to carry, and even easier to conceal. 

5.Pistol grip (Forgot about this earlier, sorry): A 30-06 will do just as much damage without a pistol grip as it could with one. 

Techno, I realize you probably feel that an automatic weapon is a good definition of an assualt weapon. I agree with you. The conditions that I stated sound pretty stupid, I'll agree with you there. However, it is because of this broad and rather assanine defintion that the so-called ban was lifted.


----------



## Adept (Nov 27, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> 3.Going from single fire to semi-auto: A semi-auto weapon is just as effective.


 Single fire IS semi-auto, unless we are differing on the meaning of single fire.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 27, 2004)

Adept said:
			
		

> Single fire IS semi-auto, unless we are differing on the meaning of single fire.


Yes. Like my colt sporter. It has 2 safety positions. SAFE and FIRE.


----------



## deadhand31 (Nov 27, 2004)

Hey man, I'm not the guy who made up the rules to the ban. It was Clinton who signed it into law, not me. Of course, Clinton was also the guy who promised hunters that they could hunt fowl with the same rifle that they used the year before. (Before you attack me on this, yes, I know you don't hunt fowl with rifles, you hunt them with shotguns. It was Clinton's flub-up, not mine!)


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 29, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yes. Like my colt sporter. It has 2 safety positions. SAFE and FIRE.


One of my favorite lines from "Black Hawk Down" is when the officer approaches one of the Delta Force sodiers and comments on his weapon being of safe.  The Delta Sodier just wiggles his finger and says"This is my saftey sir".

Cheers, 

Ryan


----------

