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

[OULobo]

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]

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]

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

 

[clockexit]

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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