Five hunters killed in Wisconsin woods

[Wickerman]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/21/wisconsin.shootings/index.html

Police: Dispute over deer stand apparently led to shootings

Sunday, November 21, 2004 Posted: 10:22 PM EST (0322 GMT)

Police at the scene believe the killings came when a man was asked to leave a deer stand.

(CNN) -- Sheriff's deputies were investigating the killings of five hunters Sunday in northwestern Wisconsin, apparently sparked by a hunting dispute that turned violent.

Three others were wounded, said Julie Veness, an emergency medical technician in Exeland, Wisconsin.

...snip..

http://new.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=76107§ion=News
...snip..
Bill Wagner, 72, of Oshkosh, was about two miles away near Deer Lake with a party of about 20 other hunters. He said the incident was "very upsetting."

After they got word of a shooting, he and others went to round up the rest of the party. He said they heard sirens, planes and helicopters and noticed the surrounding roads blocked off.

"When you're hunting you don't expect somebody to try to shoot you and murder you," he said. "You have no idea who is coming up to you."

This would normally be a Guns in the News bit, but no Guns in the News been seen in awhile.

Sad state of affairs. Our local news (out of Wisconsin) reported his weapon was an AK-47 - I'm sure that will prove to be false.

[Carl Brennan]

1. Guns don't kill people

People with guns kill people. :bounce:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alwynsw]

7. Wanna back up on that comment, Bubba?

A number of Dems/DU'ers are also hunters. I'm one of them.

[farmbo]

16. Hey I hunt too...but something is very "Ted Nugent" about this story.

It is increasingly apparent that at least several of these men thought it made sense to turn their guns on other hunters over the location of a deer stand. (I also suspect that some of the victims fired in self-defense and my prayers go out to them.)

This is NOT the act of rational persons. This act spotlights the dark side-- not of guns-- but of deranged gun owners; like Ted Nugent and the right wing militia types who vote the NRA/ GOP party line on the gun issue.

(Sorry to any DUers who found my remarks distasteful)

[Romulus]

25. nice try to explain it away

A real stereotypical, White-nationalist, Bush-supporter there. :eyes:

That would be one guy doing the shooting, not several.

And the people killed were hardly "gun toting":

http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=104&sid=338310

"There was just one gun among the eight people killed or wounded"

[farmbo]

29. Check time of my post...it wasn't disclosed to be one homocidal maniac

...and it appeared to be too much beer and Soldier of Fortune mags at the deer camp.

Hey...sorry.

[Romulus]

33. *apologies* (eom)

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoNotRefill]

46. both states involved....

were blue, not red.

[slackmaster]

3. Yes, nobody uses an AK-47 type weapon for hunting deer

Except for people who do.

[TX-RAT]

21. Except for people who do.?

Sounds more like he was hunting people. Sounds like trespassing and poaching was his cup a tea. Anybody that hunts big game with a 7.62-39 is a joke, They would either be laughed off, or run off any of the ranch's around here. I wouldn't allow anyone to hunt with one on my place. They qualify as junk guns in my opinion, Ballisticly inferior to most if not all center fire hunting rifles commonly used to hunt big-game.

[Zynx]

22. People do use junk guns in this state

You see cheap ass SKS, cheap used Savages, all sorts of old guns, etc, etc, etc.

Probably about 5% of the hunters in this state use a crap weapon. With over 600,000 out for deer season, that's a lot of junk guns.

[slackmaster]

24. It now appears the rifle was an SKS

People tell me the 7.62 x 39 is adequate for whitetail. As I've never hunted I can't say much about the ballistic requirements for any particular kind of game, but I'd say anyone who uses an SKS for that purpose probably can't afford something better.

And suspect Chai Vang clearly has a few screws loose. I'd wager some kind of drugs were involved.

[Zynx]

26. 7.62x39 is very adequate for whitetail.

It's similar to the .30-30, which is used as a popular close-range brush gun.

[TX-RAT]

34. "7.62x39 is very adequate for whitetail." ( Bull Excrement )

7.62-39 generates 893 ft-lbs at 100yards with a 125 grain bullet.
30-30 generates 1350 ft-lbs at 100yards with a 150 grain bullet.
My guess is their not that similar after all.
The 30-30 is marginal a best, even when keeping shots under 100yards.
Just my opinion, but if you can't deliver at least 2000 ft-lbs at 100 yards. You need a bigger weapon.

My 300 weaterby generates 3500 ft-lbs at 100yrds, and still has over 2000 ft-lbs at 500 yards.

[Zynx]

36. I think its on the low side too

But whitetail are easily taken with large handguns that are inferior to 7.62x39, 357 mag for one. They are taken with .30-30 and and 7.62x39 all the time.

For comparison, my .44 mag carbine doesn't come near 2000 ft-lbs at 100 yards and it 3/4 penetrated a mature buck lengthwise at seventy five yards. I'd say that's plenty of gun.

You shouldn't shoot animals with less than 1000 ft-lbs at the impact point, but against a whitetail not from Alberta, it's probably plenty and then some.

[TX-RAT]

39. 7.62x39 all the time.?

I personally don't know of anybody around here taking a deer with the 7.62-39.
I have hunted with handguns for years. I would never use a 357 for any purpose other than small game.
My personal favorite is a 7.5 inch Super Back-hawk in 45 Long Colt. I shoot only Buffalo Bore or Corbon Ammo with 300 grain minimum. All shots inside 50 yards.

[Zynx]

40. Wisconsin has an extremely wide range of allowed firearms

There's no ft-lb. limit on rifles so long as they are bigger than .22 rimfire. Handguns - it's .357, .41, .44 and anything else that puts out over 1000 ft lbs at the muzzle. This is to ban semi-automatic pistols other than the Desert Eagle.

The SKS is actually not all that uncommon up here. People either like the "macho" feel, or they like the fact that it is dirt cheap for both gun and ammo, and like most Eastern Bloc stuff, not all that tempermental.

[Fulcrum]

47. What?

You didn't know people made decent ammo for the 7.62x39? Corbon makes a 7.62x39 150gr load that packs 1400ft-lbs at 100 yards. Despite what your opinions are, you don't need a magnum to take deer (plus it ruins a lot of meat). Also, most places in the northwest or southeast are heavily wooded and shot are usually under 100 yards. I took one this year between 25 and 50 yards.

The .30-30 has been "the" deer cartridge since the blackpowder days, it's now being pushed out by the more affordable SKS rifle, which are fine if a bit heavy. I've used mine for hunting once and my brother-in-law's family uses a bunch of Norincos exclusively and they fill their bag limits every year (2 deer each). The results speak for themselves.

[TX-RAT]

48. Have no respect for the 7.62-39

Junk caliber built on a junk action (SKS)
Just my opinion.
Sorry 30-30 sucks just about as bad.

(brother-in-law's family uses a bunch of Norincos)
Very poor choice, not legal in some states, due to lack of power.

[Fulcrum]

72. Opinions don't dictate fact

What's junk about an SKS? Only flaw I find is the free-floating pin, but most military rifles use them anyway. I think you're in the minority on that .30-30 opinion as far as hunters go.

Lack of power? People in Finland think we're nuts when we go moose hunting over there and bring .300 magnums or bigger, they're caliber of choice is the 6.5x55. As long as it destroys the vitals, it doesn't matter how much energy (based on mathmatical figures) it puts out. This is clearly evident with the use of handgun rounds for hunting. Also, hunting laws in KY state 'any centerfire rifle or handgun round.'

[TX-RAT]

79. I think you're in the minority on that .30-30 opinion

In all the years since I've started this hunting operation, I've yet to have a hunter show up with a 30-30. The smallest rifle thats been here was a 250 Savage. I just called my friend who has a 62 section ranch north of mine and asked him if he's ever had a hunter use a 30-30. Interestingly enough he doesn't allow anything less than a 243 to be used on his place. He will average over 100 hunters per season.
The 30-30 was a fine rifle in it's day, but it's day has passed.

[Zynx]

82. .30-30 "less" than a .243???

Maybe for ranged shooting over open ground.

Up close, the .243 pales in comparison to *any* .30 cal, unless you're good enough to shoot a deer in the head. Brush lever action guns like .44 mag carbines and .444 and .45-70 are more powerful still at close range.

Up close, it's all about bullet diameter and weight.

[TX-RAT]

87. 444 and .45-70 are more powerful still at close range

How do you measure power?
243, 95 grain bullet, 3120 ft per second = 1710ft-lbs at 100 yrds
30-30, 150 grain bullet, 2390 ft per second = 1296 ft-lbs at 100yrds
44 mag, 240 grain bullet, 1760 ft per second = 1015 ft-lbs at 100yrds
45-70, 405 grain bullet, 1330 ft per second = 1227 ft-lbs at 100yrds
444 240 grain bullet, 2350 ft per second = 1755 ft-lbs at 100yrds
(note 444 really falls off the power scale after 100yrds.)

[Zynx]

102. The .243 numbers are deceptive

Book energy numbers are not everything. It's still a very small projectile. Nevermind that a light bullet pushed at over 3000 fps may very well blow up if it hits bone at close quarters.

Bigger, slower bullets are the best close range rounds. They won't break apart, they'll plow through bone, and they generally deliver outstanding penetration and wound channel. The flat-head carbine bullets generally hit like sledgehammers because of all these factors.

Penetration and damage is what kills. Energy is more or less a byproduct of that.

Speed freak rounds used at close range tend to either burn through without doing that much or blow apart. For deer, it generally doesn't matter all that much because they are thin-skinned and have nothing really protecting those lungs.

For something like large wild boar, which I've hunted extensively, someone using a .243 for brush shooting is out of their damn mind. Same goes for black bear. I can't even imagine if you told a bear guide on a stalking hunt you wanted to use a .243.

Yet you still see people using, or even encouraged to use, things like .44 mags and .444's for these animals.

[TX-RAT]

106. Book energy numbers are not everything.

I suspect you might be an Elmer Keith fan.
Sorry you can't argue with the numbers. What you might argue is the energy being displaced over a wider area. I've seen several articles in gun mags trying to prove the bigger slower bullet deflects less than a smaller lighter at higher speeds. They even went so far as to shoot 50 yard groups through a series of 1 inch dowels. What they discovered was the smaller faster bullet deflected equally with bigger slower rounds.


(Speed freak rounds used at close range tend to either burn through without doing that much or blow apart. For deer, it generally doesn't matter all that much because they are thin-skinned and have nothing really protecting those lungs.)

There are several bullet manufactures, giving you the opportunity to match your bullet with the game your hunting.
Nosler Partitions are my favorite for big game. A friend of mines wife took a nice 6x6 bull in Colorado, with a 243 loaded with 100 grain Nosler Partition. Broke both shoulders, found the bullet just under the skin on the off side.

(For something like large wild boar, which I've hunted extensively, someone using a .243 for brush shooting is out of their damn mind. Same goes for black bear. I can't even imagine if you told a bear guide on a stalking hunt you wanted to use a .243.)

I'm also a big fan of hog hunting, have taken many with Rifles, Bow and handgun, which is my favorite. My biggest hog was taken with a 223, one shot behind the shoulder, it went less than 15 yards. I don't recommend a 223 for hogs but in that case it was very effective.
Funny you mentioned bears, I had the opportunity to talk to some Alaskan Natives who hunt bear, seals, caribou, and some walrus. Their weapon of choice was a 22.250. Definitely not a caliber i would recommend but it's their choice.
Bullet design and shot placement are critical to a successful hunt.

[JeebusB]

140. I tend to agree that

"Bullet design and shot placement are critical to a successful hunt."


Even more critical, I'd say, than calliber or ft/lbs. (within reason, of course)

I have read of an elephant being taken w/ a .22LR. Of course, the shot went right through the ear and struck the brain. Certainly, that doesn't suggest that .22LR is an acceptable elephant cartridge. Anecdotal information is of limited value for making value judgements.

.223 is legal for deer in Texas. With premium ammunition I think it's usable, but not recomended. Considering the dog-sized deer most commonly available around here, I think any .30 caliber rifle will do the job inside of 100 yards.

But that's just my opinion. YMMV

[Redneck Socialist]

110. Curious

It must be partly a regional thing. Just about all the hunters I know have carried the 30-30 at one time or another and many still do. The .35 Rem and the .32 special are also used around here. If you showed up at deer camp lugging your .300 Weatherby you'd get some funny looks that's for sure.

Keep in mind that in this region cover is thick and ranges are short. In twenty years of hunting I've never shot a deer more than 60 - 70 yards away. Forty yards is probably about my average I think. At those ranges a 150, 170 grain thirty caliber bullet leaving the muzzle at 2,200 to 2,400 fps is plenty of medicine for whitetail deer.

IMO the .243 far more "marginal" a round for deer hunting. Mainly it comes down to different tools for different jobs.

What any of this has to do with the original post I don't know but since they are debating Diane Feinstein, boa constrictors and the taxonomic classification of apes down below (how the hell did that come up?) why not debate deer hunting calibers too?

[TX-RAT]

113. What any of this has to do with the original post I don't know

Debating whether the 7.62x39 was a legitimate hunting round. SKS was used in shooting.
Shooting here can go out to 500yrds. I don't recommend anybody taking shots that long.

[Redneck Socialist]

115. I should have thrown a smiley in there

Facetiousness doesn't get conveyed well on line. This thread went off the tracks a while ago and my "what any of this has..." comment was meant to be humorous. I apologize if you took it as challenging the relevancy of your sub-thread. :)

edited for clarity

[Fulcrum]

118. Ah...

Matter of place and environment. That's probably why you don't see .30-30s. Here in the southeast a 100 yard is considered long. Anything over that and you can't see for the trees. The .30-30 (and 7.62x39) weren't meant for long range and are fine up to 150 yards.

[racine]

154. The 30-30 was a fine rifle in it's day, but it's day has passed

Well so have Black Powder rifles, flint locks, and bow/arrows. Who cares what kind of rifle it is as long as it's legal and can take the game. Unlike the rockies where shots are taken at 150-500yds, in Western Washington State its 50-150yd. I was surprised to see so many normal but lower income people hunt with the SKS or even the AK.
"...And suspect Chai Vang clearly has a few screws loose. I'd wager some kind of drugs were involved..." Some insider information release by investigators??? What I read in several different papers was that he got separated from his hunting party on public land, wandered into adjacent private land, was asked to leave in a hostile manner, was shot at then shot back to defend himself. I think I'll wait for the final investigation before I aSSume anything. This is still a trajic event nevertheless...

[Zynx]

84. "Any centerfire rifle or any handgun round"??

I think that is irresponsible. All handgun rounds under .357 mag in overall power are much too weak to humanely kill deer.

[Fulcrum]

119. You're forgetting

handguns that shoot rifle cartridges such as the Remington XP, Savage Stryker, T/C Contender and so on.

[DoNotRefill]

76. Junk action?

the vast majority of SKS rifles utilize a milled receiver. Many have threaded instead of pinned barrels. If you know what you're doing when you shop for them, you can get a damned fine rifle for very little money.

There have been what, over 65 MILLION guns made in the 7.62x39 mm chambering? Somehow, that isn't indicative of a caliber that sucks. It's not like it's a .40 S&W...

[TX-RAT]

80. wonderful news ( 65 Million useless weapons )

( 65 MILLION guns made in the 7.62x39 mm chambering )
Wonder how many of those are built on non semi-auto or full auto actions?
Can you give me one example where that caliber is better suited than another, ( other than military or law-enforcement purposes. ) Actually i think it sucks in that department as well.

[Lefty48197]

123. The Viet Cong used 7.62mm bullets to kill American soldiers

tell their widows that the bullet isn't good enough to kill large mammals.

[Romulus]

27. *no* difference btwn SKS and Mini-30, Rem 7400, ad nauseum

edited to add:

"No difference" as far as end use goes (.30 cal round that goes blam).

http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=104&sid=338310

"Zeigle said the suspect was "chasing after them and killing them," with a SKS 7.62 mm semiautomatic rifle, a common hunting weapon."

[TX-RAT]

44. Agree

All equally useless, especially in that caliber.

[Zynx]

70. So you're a magnum fan. Doesn't mean "little" stuff doesn't work.

Most of the guns in my family are pretty big (.44 mag carbines, .300 Win, .338 Win, 7m-08 with custom loads) but you don't need a cannon to hunt deer.

[TX-RAT]

77. 300 Weatherby is far from being a Cannon.

I see no problems with any of the calibers you've listed, with exception to the 44 mag carbine, which i consider a sub 100 yard weapon.

[Zynx]

81. The .44 isn't for long range shooting.

And it has iron sights, so someone would have to be a bloody idiot to try to plug something more than a hundred yards away. Most people have no business doing it.

The .44 is perfectly lethal out near a hundred yards. See previous statement about what it did to a rather large buck at seventy-five. But its a brush gun, and I use it for either hunting deer in close cover shit, or for hunting boar.

The .300 Weatherby is excessive for whitetail unless you exclusively hunt the Alberta-type monsters, hunt in an area heavily populated by kill-stealing bears, or routinely shoot at 300 yards +. No one needs that much firepower to hunt a deer.

[TX-RAT]

83. I would rather have to much, than to little.

[Zynx]

86. Whatever floats your boat so long as you can use it well.

There's no such thing as overkill, especially when there are a lot of hunters around who might want to claim the deer.

If someone could effectively use a .375 H&H, I wouldn't object to them using it on deer. I'd be at a loss for words if they bought it just for use on deer, but so long as you're not maiming animals, I don't have a problem with what's used.

.300 Weatherby is too much gun for a lot of people to get good with, though.

[TX-RAT]

88. .300 Weatherby , is not for everyone.

Those that are recoil shy should look for something else. I'm one of those that recoil doesn't seem to bother.

[Fulcrum]

120. Recoil isn't my problem

I'm not recoil shy, but I do object to the amount of damage it does to the deer at close range. Ruins too much meat for the type of hunting in my area, I currently use a .308 myself. No need to blow a deer in two just to do adequate damage to the heart/lung area.

[TX-RAT]

32. And suspect Chai Vang clearly has a few screws loose, " YEP "

[Lefty48197]

122. Didn't the gun nuts tell us that this was a "varmint" rifle?

With the implication being that a gun that shot those tiny little 7.62 mm bullets was only good for killing chipmunks and the like.

[Fulcrum]

131. I don't see a varmint rifle

How does that have any relevance to the rifle at hand? Your varmint reference though probably refers to the AR-15 in 5.56. Either way, the .22lr is as pure a varmint round as any ever produced, yet it has probably killed more people than any other cartridge.

[Lefty48197]

157. The AR15 with the 5.56 or the SKS, like the guy used

It's always funny to hear people tell me that those weapons are "varmint rifles". Especially, when you consider that they are the weapons of choice of soldiers worldwide, or at least their select fire cousins. I'll bet the US Marines could wipe out a lot of ground hogs with their varmint rifles.
And as far as which round has killed more people? I'm sure it was one of the rounds used by one of the militaries, in one of the wars. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a 22L.

[madison2000]

5. news report from Madison

Shooter was also a hunter so I don't think it was an assault rifle.

Hunter Goes on Shooting Spree
Sun 11-21-2004 , 9:15 pm

Five dead, three wounded

A hunter who was upset that he couldn't hunt on private property, decided to take revenge by going on a shooting spree. The suspect killed five hunters and injured three others in Northern Wisconsin, near Exeland in Sawyer County. The county Sheriff's Department the group of hunters were returning to their deer shack, when they noticed a hunter was trespassing in one of their tree stands. Witnesses say the unknown hunter started shooting at them. Tim Ziegle of the Sawyer County Sheriff's Department says, 'One of the men had a walkie talkie. He radioed back to the shack to get help and other people from the shack went out and were shot.' The whole area was in a lockdown Sunday while deputies searched the area. The suspect was arrested later in the evening. His name hasn't been released, but the Sheriff's Department has confirmed the man is from the Twin Cities. As for the three injured victims, one is in critical condition, another was taken to a hospital in Marshfield and the third is in fair condition.

Shooter's name was released on television: Yang

[Wickerman]

35. geeez

"...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, Zeigle said. There was just one gun among the eight people killed or wounded, he said."

They were unarmed?

[Zynx]

38. Apparently they didn't have their guns with them.

No idea why, though. It's unusual to see hunters up north walk anywhere without their guns. You never know when the deer is going to pop up.

[aikoaiko]

59. They should have been CCW at least.

Thats why I carry one with me.

[saigon68]

73. No CCW in Wisconsin

Our soon to be one term Democratic governor vetoed it. He is going to lose the next election. He is way out of touch with the voters and only won by beating a total nut job who was picked by Tommy Thompson

Thompson picked Mccollum to be his Lt. Gov. butt boy for 14 yaers until Thompson went on to fry Federal Fish at HHS.

[Squatch]

60. It didn't say how many were bowhunting...

hence "1 gun among 8 people." Everbody else was "packing" yew, sinew and chert.

[aikoaiko]

61. 20 rounds from an SKS?

I thought they were 10 round magazines that needed to be stripper clip fed. This would mean he reloaded. geeeeesh.

unless of course, he converted the SKS to hold more rounds (very possible).

[slackmaster]

116. 20-round fixed replacement magazines are widely available

Most of them have a cool star embossed on the side.

[Lefty48197]

124. Good thing he didn't attach a 30 rounder eh?

.

[slackmaster]

125. Not possible on a standard SKS

As I said, the magazine is fixed. That's why the rifle was never an "assault weapon".

[Lefty48197]

129. You mean the Democrat definition of assault rifle

and not the gun nut definition, right?

[Fulcrum]

132. Nope

He meant law book definition, via the text of the '94 AWB.

[slackmaster]

137. Correct! The now DEFUNCT definition in federal law

The one that is no longer on the books because its supporters sat on their hands for the 10 years they had to come up with some rational justification for renewing it.

Or maybe the gun-banning Emperor had no clothes.

[slackmaster]

135. I'm not aware there was an official Democratic definition

For assault weapon or assault rifle or whatever you are talking about.

Please post a link.

[Fulcrum]

136. I've figured it out

It's simple: If it's semi-automatic and looks evil, it's an assault weapon. Of course the definition is fluid, in PA it also refers to pump-action firearms as can be seen from their AWB proposals.

There is also a Golden Rule: If it was used in a crime, called it an "Assault _____". Someone murdered by a pistol? Assault pistol. Someone murdered with a Remington 7400? Assault rifle. This is quite evident in news stories if you pay attention. Feel free to make up your own definitions as well, it's fun.

[Billy Ruffian]

139. The AWB synonyms

The Scary Looking Gun Ban

The Liberal Magazine and Black Gun Ban

[Lefty48197]

158. Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees the insanity in this post

I mean the source that was quoted of course:

"the unknown hunter started shooting at them. Tim Ziegle of the Sawyer County Sheriff's Department says, 'One of the men had a walkie talkie. He radioed back to the shack to get help and other people from the shack went out and were shot."

Please tell me, everybody. If you were at a hunting camp, and somebody called you on a walkie-talkie and told you that some stranger was shooting at members of your hunting party, would you have gone out there to help, UNARMED? Supposedly, the hunting party only had one gun among all of the shooting victims, who were going to help their buddy, who was being shot at. There is something fishy here right? The story, as told by the Sheriff's department, does not "add up" right? When the Sheriff's deputies investigated, was there no sign of a gun among the victims? Did the rest of the hunting party tell the deputies that there were no guns, or that they had possibly gathered the guns up after the massacre? I'm sure the Sheriff's department will report all the facts during the criminal trial, but press releases like this only leave more questions unanswered.

[Nicky Scarfo]

6. That's it. I don't need to hear anything else. Ban all guns. And hunters.

And deer stands. And the foot warming pouches and Realtree camo the deer hunters use. And deer.

[alwynsw]

8. Does WI have the death penalty?

I do hope not because this jerk will be prime meat for the other boys in the pen for years to come. Funny thing about the convicts I've known - they'll rob you blind but will not tolerate screwing up a hunt. Go figure.

[Zynx]

9. No death penalty

We do have people beaten to death in prison, though.

[saigon68]

75. Ask Jeffrey Dahmer

He was beaten to death with a mop handle.

[Zynx]

10. Much more likely it was an SKS than an AK-47

I've seen those used for deer hunting. Actually quite effective against white tails at close-to-medium range.

The media reporting on this has been all over the place. I'll wait until morning to make any serious statements on what happened.

[Zynx]

12. CONFIRMED - SKS, not AK-47.

Knight-Ridder reporting.

[Endangered Specie]

11. "you don't expect somebody to try to shoot you and murder you..."

"When you're hunting you don't expect somebody to try to shoot you and murder you," he said. "You have no idea who is coming up to you."

Gee, I bet thats what the deer would say.

[JeebusB]

144. Well....

Judging from the way they're all over the place most of the year, then frickin disappear on opening day, I think they not only expect to get shot at, but they've got a copy of the Forest Service's calendar, too.
:oP

[Retired AF Dem]

13. I believe there is more to this than a 'hunting dispute"

let's wait and see what unfolds.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

14. That would be my guess...

Having grown up in a small town, I know that there can be some pretty vicious undercurrents. Chances are these guys had a beef that went back twenty years.

[northernsoul]

19. well, unfortunately the shooter is from St. Paul

and is a Hmong immigrant.

My guess is this guy saw some stuff in Laos that messed him up pretty bad and mental illness plays no small role in this tragedy.

I hope there's not a huge anti-Hmong backlash because of this. Every group has their lunatics. I didn't blame white folks for Tim McVeigh.

[racine]

155. This sounds a bit racist...

What does being Hmong and immigrant have to do with any mental illness??? The guy was 15 when he came over here. He was a veteran of the California National Guard, you know Uncle Sam? Why don't we see what the investigation shows before you prejudge him based on his race...

[iverglas]

156. ya think?

"What does being Hmong and immigrant have to do with any mental illness???"

I dunno. Did somebody say it did?

Here's what actually was said:

My guess is this guy saw some stuff in Laos that messed him up pretty bad and mental illness plays no small role in this tragedy.

Two separate statements. Mental illness (on the part of the person who killed the others) could have played a part in the incident. (Racism played a part, on the part of the others, and who could forget alcohol, or not be pretty sure it played a part too.) That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the individual being Hmong and an immigrant -- and there is no reason to interpret the statement that was made as meaning it did.

It's not implausible that the individual did suffer some post-traumatic effects from things he saw/experienced before immigrating. And they might very likely have been associated with, and triggered by, groups of men with firearms shouting and shooting at him. PTSD is not, technically, a "mental illness", but it is a disorder, although it derives from natural responses to overwhelming fear, and it very definitely does affect people's reactions to threatening stimuli.

Failure to acknowledge that the previous experiences of immigrants can and do affect their actions and reactions is what is actually racist. Police forces where I'm at, for example, had to be trained to understand that when two large armed uniformed men knock on the door of a group of Salvadorans playing their stereos too loud in response to neighbours' complaints, the people in the apartment expect (consciously or unconsciously, rationally or irrationally) that they are about to be kidnapped, tortured and possibly killed.

Someone who has lived in a refugee camp where s/he was vulnerable to attacks, or in a society in which violence was endemic, whether random or targeted against him/her or the group s/he belonged to, will indeed likely "over"react to threatening stimuli. Time alone does not eliminate the fear response or the self-protective reaction to it, particularly for a person who has other reasons for not feeling safe, and a member of a minority community such as this one in the US may well not feel safe.

There is nothing "racist" about acknowledging these facts, and it would be absolutely racist if this individual's reaction were prompted by such stimuli -- racist threats, brandishing or firing of firearms, and his natural response to them -- and this were not taken into consideration.

[Zynx]

23. No, just a hunting dispute.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/nov04/277439.asp

>>Town of Meteor - Five deer hunters were shot to death and three were wounded Sunday by a man who was hunting from someone else's tree stand in northern Wisconsin, authorities said.


The bizarre attack happened on private land in this Sawyer County town about noon on the second day of the gun deer season, a time when hundreds of thousands of deer hunters are in the woods throughout Wisconsin.

Sawyer County Chief Deputy Tim Zeigle said Chai Soua Vang, 36, of St. Paul, Minn., was arrested by a Department of Natural Resources warden just before dark about 4 p.m. on a road about one mile from the scene, just across the Sawyer County border in Rusk County.

Authorities said the rampage started after a hunting party saw a hunter they didn't know occupying their tree stand. That led to a confrontation, and at least one of the group was shot and wounded. One victim used a walkie-talkie to call for help, but when other hunting partners came to the scene, they also were shot, Zeigle said.<<<

[slackmaster]

37. I hope they test Mr. Vang for drugs

It sounds an awful lot like something a person might do while under the influence of amphetamines.

[Lefty48197]

126. The guy killed five people. Whether he was on drugs or not doesn't make

any difference, does it?

[slackmaster]

138. It would provide more crimes to charge him with

Along with murder, attempted murder, ADW, trespassing, poaching, and fleeing the scene of a crime. Put him in prison just a little longer so the rest of us can be safe for a little longer.

[Lefty48197]

165. I don't believe WI allows parole for people convicted of 5 murders

.

[TX-RAT]

43. Add trespassing and poaching to the list.

[alwynsw]

15. I once killed a poacher's 3-wheeler.

I'd run his ass off for three days in a row. On the fourth, I waited to hunt in the afternoon. I headed to my stand on a farm I own in another county and there he was again - in my stand this time. I killed his 3-wheeler with a shot from about 150 yds. off.

He called the sheriff. John, the sheriff, asked me if I wanted to prosecute. He told the poacher that it was his tough luck that he was out an ATV. (I'd mentioned the prior episodes to the sheriffin passing at the local coffee shop on the previous evening.)

In short, I still have the 3-wheeler. It has a relatively newer engine these days. The poacher paid a hefty fine and lost his rifle, too.

I would never shoot at a poacher unless he/she shot first.

[MrSandman]

151. Evil three-wheeler poacher...nt

[Columbia]

17. Here comes the semi-auto ban

Tragedy will beget tragedy ala 9/11. :cry:

[Endangered Specie]

20. I recall at least two threads in here trying to defend the SKS...

that it wasnt a weapon you had to be worried about being "mowed down" by.

A grade irony there.

edit:
Thread in LBN:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1011674&mesg_id=1011674
I wonder if he was using a larger than 10 round pre-post ban magazine.

[slackmaster]

28. There is probably a 5-round limit on magazine capacity for hunting

That's the deal in most states. Using a 30-rounder in California would violate the Fish and Game Code.

[Zynx]

30. Not in Wisconsin - Almost NO rules on rifles.

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/regs/Deer04.pdf

Read pages 8-9. So long as it is not a .22 rimfire, .177 centerfire, or using a non-standard barrel (under 16"), using FMJ ammo, or fully automatic, you can use whatever you want. Any centerfire rifle over .22 is explictly stated as "legal."

The FMJ ban is one I actually agree with. That's because of the generally high hunter density in Wisconsin. FMJ ammo is also horrible for hunting deer due to the lack of shock.

[slackmaster]

31. Thanks!

[LinuxUser]

42. You can be mowed down by ANY repeating firearm

The BAR is a classic hunting rifle, and it is semi-auto and holds 7 rounds of 30'06. Hunters have been using them for decades. It's not any different from an SKS in terms of rate of fire, but it does deliver a lot more deadly shots (30'06 vs 762x39).

People can be mowed down in a lot of different ways. I recently read about a "mass knifing" in Korea; someone killed three people in quick succession with a knife. In China they have had a series of mass-poisonings, where someone will put poison into his competitor's restaurant's rice supply and they end up with 40 people killed.

People have done mass-killings with airplanes, cars, whatever.

If you want to kill a lot of people, you can do it, whether you have an AK or a car or whatever. It's the intention to do such a thing that makes it possible, not any specific technology. Picking out technologies to ban will just result in a lot of laws and the mass-killings will continue if people want to do it.

Did you know that boa constrictors are illegal in San Francisco? That's right. It's because when Feinstein was mayor there, someone threw a boa constrictor into her car, and this frightened her, so she banned them. Great. That didn't save a single life or change anything other than pissing off boa constrictor enthusiasts. That's how gun laws are, too.

I do, however, support requirements that all gun transfers go through FFLs and all gun transfers should have instant-checks for disqualifying background (criminal or mental history). They should prohibit any kind of non-FFL transfer, such as gun show transfers.

[Billy Ruffian]

45. The phrase "Gun show transfers"

is a bit misleading.

You can go to a gun show, and buy from a dealer, and the dealer will do the instant check (just like at a gun shop)

Or, you can go to a gun show, and buy from a private citizen, and NOT go through the instant check (just like buying from a private citizen elsewhere)

I haven't been to a gun show in ages (I have too many expensive time consuming hobbies as it is) but here in NC, based on listening to friends, almost (but not all) gun sales at the gunshows are through dealers.

This is not to say that all transfers should, or should not, go through instant check (you would like them to, I disagree). It's only to point out that the perception of gun shows as a vast unlicensed market is an exaggeration.

[iverglas]

49. may we borrow your crystal ball?

Did you know that boa constrictors are illegal in San Francisco? That's right. It's because when Feinstein was mayor there, someone threw a boa constrictor into her car, and this frightened her, so she banned them.

Yeah, what a scaredy-cat. The fact that the mayor who preceded her was MURDERED, along with another member of the city council she belonged to ... that had nothing to do with her wariness about someone throwing potentially deadly things at her. Nah.

That didn't save a single life or change anything other than pissing off boa constrictor enthusiasts.

I'd like to check your facts, if you wouldn't mind handing that crystal sphere over. We need to set the controls to show us "events in San Francisco in the timeline in which possession of boa constrictors was not prohibited". This will enable us to determine whether any such deaths occurred in the alternate San Francisco in which no ban was imposed. Probably none, but I'd just like some support for the unqualified assertion that was made.


Actually, I'd like some support for the main assertion itself: that Diane Feinstein banned boa constrictors in San Francisco (presumably outside the zoo, which seems to have quite a few). There's just nothing on the net about this alleged occurrence that I can find, at all. Nothing about the boa constrictor thrown into the car. And I can't even find anything about a ban on boas in SF. Can mayors of major US cities ban things at will?

Details, please?

[Wickerman]

50. crap

proof? I hate it when you damn furriners spoil perfectly good urban legend with demands of proof.

shit.

[iverglas]

51. oh, don't get yer knickers in a knot

It's hardly like anybody's going to pay any attention to such spoil-sporting.

I'd actually been considering calling you in, though, so what a fortuitous happenstance that you happened by.

I thought you might design an evaluation model for us, to evaluate the effectiveness of a ban on boa constrictors, so we could see how these things are *really* done.

No need, I suppose. It seems to work perfectly well just to say "That didn't save a single life or change anything" -- about most anything one pleases. Around here.

Maybe you should consult some of these folks next time your political masters direct you to justify doing / not doing something, you spineless statistician you. Seems to me like the taxpayers could really just eliminate you altogether ...

[Wickerman]

52. Well, if I were in Cali

I'm sure my research would've foudn that an increase in boa constrictors was needed, not a ban! I advocate carry at will for the rascals - I think we'll all be safer when we each have our own.

"Seems to me like the taxpayers could really just eliminate you altogether ..."

Shh, that is getting to close to reality. Why would you need evaluation when you have Jeebus telling you what is right and wrong?

[JeebusB]

145. My thoughts, exactly. :o) n/t

.

[LinuxUser]

53. Here are the facts you requested:

Mr. Iverglas, you are correct, I should get in the habit of backing up my assertions. Here's what I found in a quick google search:

http://www.anapsid.org/handling.html

To quote: "Between the years of 1978 and 1988, according to the American Federation of Herpetoculturalists, there were four reported instances of amateur keepers killed by their snakes". It goes on to give some more statistics which I won't report in full here (read it if you want to read something boring about how rare boa constrictor fatalities are in the US), and it lists some reported instances. Given how infrequent these attacks are, I assume that the attacks it lists are a fairly comprehensive list of all the recent attacks. None of the reported instances occured in SF, and it seems that the number of fatalities nation-wide is so low that it's statistically meaningless to talk about where they occur. Being killed by a boa constrictor in the US is so low-probability that it probably just hasn't happened in SF yet, and maybe it won't for a long long time, if ever. I'm making the assumption that the ban has not changed rates of ownership of boas; anyone who wants one probably just goes to Oakland and buys one. But I could be wrong on that; maybe everyone turned in his boa as ordered, and so the fact that there are no reported attacks in SF is due to the ban, not the fact that there is less than one fatal attack per year nation-wide.

I Googled around some more I also couldn't find any reports of boa constrictor fatalities in SF. Being killed by a boa constrictor in the US is much more rare than lightning fatalities (about 70 a year, I think), but more common than meteor strike fatalities (four "confirmed" cases of meteor fatalities in the past 600 years, see: http://www.tas.idv.tw/faq/q501.html).

And hey, while we're at it, there have been more documented meteor fatalities in the past 600 years (wold-wide) than there have been cases of criminal homicide involving civilian legally-owned machineguns in the US! However, population density on Earth has increased substantially while meteor strike frequency has remianed constant, so the current estimate is that there is probably one meteor strike fatality every 60 years now. The sky is falling!

BAN METEORS! Support the Assault Meteor Ban Act of 2005, sponsored by Sen. Feinstein!

Conclusion: You are saying "we need to set the controls to show us 'events in SF in the timeline in which possession of boa constrictors was not prohibited', enable us to determine whether any such deaths occured in the alternate SF in which no ban was imposed." Alas, the frequency of attacks is so low that there is no control because I can't find any documented cases ever. So Mayor Feinstein just banned them because she hated them, that's all I can conclude. People die of many different causes, many of which are preventable, and worrying about boa contrictors and legally-owned machineguns is almost (but not quite) as silly as worrying about meteor strikes.

But if you are worried about such things I would love to sell you some insurance policies to cover them! Here's my price-list

$100,000 of coverage costs:
$200 for boa constrictor attacks which occur in the US
$100 for being murdered by a legally-owned machinegun in the US except by a law enforcement officer
$10 meteor strike coverage, worldwide

Send me a check if you are worried about it!

[anonymous44]

54. lmao

Can I get the coverage?

[LinuxUser]

55. Of course!

In fact I'm offering a one-day special right now for Democratic Underground members ONLY! Hurry!

For a one-time payment $13 (the unlucky number!) you will get a lifetime coverage of $100,000 against the following fatalities:

1. Being killed by a boa constrictor in the US (suicide excluded)
2. Being unlawfully killed by a legally-owned NFA machinegun in the US owned by a civilian who is not a member of the military or a law enforcement officer (suicide excluded)
3. Being killed by a meteor anywhere in the world (suicide excluded)

Operators are standing by! We accept Visa, Mastercard and gold nuggets!

[Wickerman]

63. uh, no selling in this forum allowed

whether it be pythons, boas, feather or scaley, or insurance policies htat would make Daffey Duck quacky (from my favorite ever Daf and Porky cartoon).

[JeebusB]

146. What about PayPal??? ;)

.

[iverglas]

56. did you miss something?

I said: "Actually, I'd like some support for the main assertion itself: that Diane Feinstein banned boa constrictors in San Francisco"

... and you say: "So Mayor Feinstein just banned them because she hated them, that's all I can conclude."

Let me try this another way. That's all you can conclude FROM WHAT? You conclude that Feinstein hated boa constrictors from the fact that she banned them -- which you have proved HOW?

What evidence do you have to support your assertion that Feinstein banned boa constrictors from San Francisco when she was mayor of that city??


I mean, this is apart from evidence I was wanting to as to what happened in San Francisco after the time when Feinstein banned boa constrictors <sic> in the alternate time line in which she had not banned them. You told us that the ban <sic> "didn't change anything" -- and I want to know how you know that other than by looking in your crystal ball, and I want a peek at your crystal ball, if that's your source, to make sure you have it set correctly.

(Now, one might claim that when you said that the ban "didn't change anything", you meant that no one had been harmed by boa constrictors prior to the ban and no one was harmed by boa constrictors after the ban. That just wouldn't be particularly useful information, however, since it would not tell us whether someone would have been harmed by boa constrictors had there been no ban.)


So let's try it again, 'k?

Kindly substantiate your assertion that Diane Feinstein "banned" boa constrictors when she was Mayor of San Francisco.

Absent such substantiation, one might have to conclude that you were simply making/repeating a fabricated and quite ridiculous slur on a Democratic politician, for some reason.


Before I go off for dinner, allow me to chuckle at this one:

People die of many different causes, many of which are preventable, and worrying about ... legally-owned machineguns is almost (but not quite) as silly as worrying about meteor strikes.

Mm hmm. I guess it's kind of like worrying about getting sick from legally-owned anthrax ... given that it isn't particularly easy to own either one easily in the US these days. Depending, of course, in the case of the machine guns, on whose story one believes, the story itself apparently depending on the purpose for which it is being told in any given instance ...

[LinuxUser]

57. Ah, terribly sorry to have provided not quite the facts you requested

"Kindly substantiate your assertion that Diane Feinstein 'banned' boa constrictors when she was Mayor of San Francisco."

Finding the facts on that was not quite as easy as my meteor strike research, but here's what I've got:

http://www.sfbg.com/Guides/Pets/

The SFBG is a popular free weekly in SF, and that URL says: "Boas are banned in San Francisco. After someone put one on former mayor Dianne Feinstein's car seat, she promptly outlawed them."

I can't find any other references on this, but I know, Mr. Iverglas, how important the facts are to you. You have brought up this issue of "show me the facts" in previous threads in response to me, and I never want to disapoint you. I owe it to you; any statements made by one such as me, who owns two Glocks, two AR-15s and two SKS rifles, must be verified!

So I went to the next logical step, and called up The Animal Connection, a pet store in San Francisco located at 2550 Juddah St (look up their number if you really feel the need to call them.) I talked to a helpful person, and told him that I want to buy a snake. He said that they sell snakes. I told him I am looking for a boa. He told me it's illegal to sell boas, pythons or any type of constrictor snakes in the city of San Francico! So, that is the scoop. I would assume that a pet store in SF that specializes in snakes would know the laws, and if they were allowed to sell boas, they probably would.

The only next step after this would be for me to contact City Hall and find the actual statute that says this. I'm pretty satisfied by now that I have one media reference in the SFBG and confirmation from a reptile specialist pet store in SF. What about you? And can I interest you in one of those insurance policies?

[Squatch]

58. Let me lend a hand...info from SF health code...

As to the provenance of this code, whether from a spiteful mayor (doubtful) or an established legislative process (more likely), I cannot attest. Nevertheless, here is the applicable Section of SF's healthcode that specifically prohibits people without permits from owning snakes of families Boidae and/or Pythonidae, of which the snake commonly known as the "Boa Constrictor" belongs:

--------------

SEC. 50. PROHIBITION.
No person shall have, keep, maintain or have in his possession or under his control any wild and potentially dangerous animal as defined in Section 51, unless excepted therefrom pursuant to Sections 50 through 66 of this Chapter. (Added by Ord. 81-78, App. 2/10/78)


SEC. 51. DEFINITION OF "WILD AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS ANIMAL".
For purposes of Sections 50 through 66, a wild and potentially dangerous animal is defined as an animal which is wild by nature and not customarily domesticated in the City and County of San Francisco and which, because of its size, disposition, or other characteristics could constitute a danger to human life or property. Such wild and potentially dangerous animals shall be deemed to include:

I. Class Mammilia

A) Order Carnivora

1. Family Candidae (dog), excepting Canis Familiaris (domestic dog), and including but not limited to such members as the wolf, the coyote and the jackal.

2. Family Felidae (cat), including but not limited to such members as the tiger, the jaguar, the leopard, the lion and the cougar, excepting Felix Catus.

3. Family Hyenidae (hyena).

4. Family Ursidae (bear).

B) Order Probscidea (elephant).

C) Order Primata (primates), including but not limited to the chimpanzee, the baboon, the orangutan, the gibbon, and the gorilla, excepting the Family Hominidae (man). Apparently, keeping hominids, of which we are all members (hopefully), as pets is not prohibited...or am I reading that wrong? Any lawyers in the house?

D) Order Artiodactyla, even-toed hoofed mammals, excluding the domesticated species of the Family Suidae (domestic pig) and Family Bovidae (cattle, sheep, goats).

E) Order Perissodactyla, odd-toed hoofed mammals, excluding the domesticated species of the Family Equidae (horses, donkeys, etc.)

II. Class Reptillia

A) Order Squamata

1. Sub-Order Serpentes, all front and rear fanged venomous snakes and all species of the Families Boidae and Pythonidae.

2. Sub-Order Lacertilia, both venomous species of the Family Helodermatidae (Gila monster and Mexican beaded lizard).

B) Order Crocodilia (crocodile and alligator).

III. Any other species of the animal kingdom (as opposed to vegetable or mineral) which is venomous to human beings whether its venom is transmitted by bite, sting, touch or other means, except the honey-producing bee. (Added by Ord. 81-78, App. 2/10/78)

------------------
So, it goes on further to say that a person who wants to keep one of these animals as a pet must be properly permitted. And what qualifications must a person have?

1) Fill out and submit the requisite paperwork.
2) Meet these requirements: "No permit shall be granted except with such conditions attached as shall, in the opinion of the Director (I don't know how one goes about satisfying this opinion of the director...doesn't specify required training, experience, etc.) , reasonably insure the health, safety, and general welfare of the public and said animal referred to in the permit application. The applicant must show knowledge and ability to properly care for said animal, and no permit shall be issued to any person who has been found guilty of cruelty to animals."

http://www.amlegal.com/sfhealth_nxt/gateway.dll/California/San%20Francisco/Health/article00002.htm?fn=altmain-nf.htm$f=templates$3.0

[LinuxUser]

62. Much appreciated, Mr. Squatch

And to quote Mr. Iverglas in the grandparent of this post: "Absent such substantiation, one might have to conclude that you were simply making/repeating a fabricated and quite ridiculous slur on a Democratic politician, for some reason."

So... given the reference in SFBG and Mr. Squatch's research above, do you still regard my statements as "fabricated" and a "quite ridiculous slur"? Even though it's documented now, is it still "ridiculous"? Just curious.

Hey, while we're on the subject of Feinstein and playing fast and loose with the truth, I will quote something from a letter I got from her:

"Semi-automatic assault weapons -- which fire up to 250 rounds of ammunition within seconds and without warning -- are weapons of war that do not belong on the streets of our communities"

Ummm... there aren't ANY guns that fire 250 rounds of ammunition within seconds that can be carried and fired by a person, Predator notwithstanding (it would not be possible for a person to carry and fire the type of minigun used in that movie). The only type of firearm which can fire 250 rounds of ammunition within seconds is a gattling chain gun (see http://world.guns.ru/machine/minigun-e.htm). There aren't any of these "on the streets of our communities", unless by "streets" Sen. Feinstein means "airspace" and "our communities" she means "Falujah" perhaps. Who knows. No one has ever used a minigun to commit a crime in the US, except possibly misuse by the armed forces personnel (such as a recent incident where a school was strafed by a fighter jet in New Jersey).

I'll end this post by making some statements that are generalizations and impressions, and I won't try to back these up with individual facts because it's hard to do. I think that most gun control laws are based on urban legends, Hollywood, hysteria, and bogus, made-up "facts" like Feinstein's "fact" above about "semi-automatic assault weapons". Sen. Feinstein just has no idea what she's talking about.

I love pictures of women with guns!

[Squatch]

64. Hold it, man...

Notice that I said I cannot attest to the provenance, or the origin of the prohibition on constricting snakes.

All I can say is that it's more likely that this prohibition came about as a result of a long legislative process fueled by the desires of the citizenry, rather than the vengeful action of the mayor.

And, also note that these animals are not banned, but require an owner be properly permitted by the local government to own and care for one or many.

[LinuxUser]

66. Yes it's true

You said you doubted it... I found the reference in SFBG that said that it was a vindictive Mayor Feinstein who did it. Who knows. SFBG says one thing, you opine that that's unlikely, and I really don't have any other facts to go on, other than that I've heard this in other places, too. I'm sure if I really really wanted to spend a week or two working on it, I would go to SF and do some research... but I don't care enough. The reference in SFBG is enough to put it in the "possible" column for me; "confirmed" would definitely require some more research. But whatever. I do know that Feinstein spouts off all kinds of incorrect nonsense about guns, what they are capable of, etc as I gave in my example.

[Squatch]

67. Let me weigh the options here:

1) There is a prohibition in place because of a legislative process that's existed in CA for a long, long time...

2) There is a prohibition in place because of a vindictive mayor, and I should believe that because Mr LinuxUser heard that "in other places, too" and that he "really <doesn't> have any other facts to go on"

Wow, hard decision to make here....LOL

[LinuxUser]

68. Well...

I do have the quote from SFBG, which is supposed to do some level of journalistic fact checking, but who knows. Like I said, that's enough to move it into "possible" but not "confirmed", for me. If I had access to Nexus search service I would be able to confirm or disprove this quite conclusively, but I don't have access and Google isn't showing anything up. If it happened there would definitely be articles in the Chron or the Examiner and those would definitely be in Nexus... but I can't access it.

We are out of facts!

[Columbia]

89. Feinstein

http://feinstein.senate.gov/biography.html

A native of San Francisco, she was elected to the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors in 1969 and served 2 ½ terms as President of the Board. She became Mayor of San Francisco in November 1978 following the assassination of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein

As President of the Board of Supervisors, Feinstein automatically succeeded to the mayoral position on December 4.

http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_index.asp

Mission: The Board of Supervisors responds to the needs of the people of the City and County of San Francisco, establishes city policies, and adopts ordinances and resolutions.

The Board of Supervisors is the legislative branch of the City and County of San Francisco. The Board consists of 11 members. Each member is elected on a non-partisan basis from a district where he or she lives.

___________________________________

It can be inferred that Feinstein did have a major part of crafting the boa constrictor legislation as she was the President of the legislative body at the time. Notice that the article listed (SFBG) does not say she passed the legislation AS mayor but she helped bring about the ordinance AND she was also a former mayor as well.

[iverglas]

100. and isn't it just a crying shame

(or ... "if only")

... that nobody said

"that Feinstein did have a major part of crafting the boa constrictor legislation"

??

Unfortunately, what our fellow poster DID say was this:

It's because when Feinstein was mayor there, someone threw a boa constrictor into her car, and this frightened her, so she banned them.

It's quite amazing how dissimilar the statements are, isn't it?

"Notice that the article listed (SFBG) does not say she passed the legislation AS mayor but she helped bring about the ordinance AND she was also a former mayor as well."

You seem to have come late to the party and not bothered to figure out what the conversation was about. It wasn't about the "article listed". The article in question was offered as evidence in support of an allegation made earlier -- that Feinstein banned boa constrictors, while she was mayor, and that she did so for a particular reason. And lousy evidence it was, too.


Also, the first-quoted allegation above was an unqualified statement of fact that turned out to be false. The allegation *you* are making is an inference based on ... oh, nothing in particular ... and which there is no reason to make or accept. For all we know, Feinstein, one of 11 members of the senior municipal governing body, vehemently opposed the entire city by-law in question.

[Columbia]

105. Chill out

Must you always be so condescending?

Did I mention anything besides the article in question? No, I did not. I merely looked up information to try and verify it. For all your huff-and-buff, you assume too much.

Additionally, your fixation on whether the ordinance was passed while she was Mayor or not is inconsequential. The point was that due to an experience, she was moved to outlaw a certain species of reptile. And that has not been proven except for an anecdotal aside from a local newspaper.

And from evidence gathered it seems to lean more towards Feinstein having a role in passing this legislation rather than opposing it.

[Columbia]

99. Boas not eligible for permits

SEC. 52. ANIMALS ELIGIBLE FOR PERMITS.
Thirty days after the effective date of this ordinance, no person shall have, keep, maintain or have in his or her possession or under his or her control any wild animal of the kinds included in this Section, unless said animal is the subject of a valid permit granted to such a person. Animals eligible for said permits shall be limited to the following: Species known as Saimiri sciurea (squirrel monkey), Mustela putorius (ferret) for whom a state permit has been received and family Callithricidae (marmosets). (Amended by Ord. 542-82, App. 11/26/82)

http://www.amlegal.com/sfhealth_nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=alp:sf_health

[Squatch]

65. Oh, and another thing (I just can't resist this one)

You're really trying to lose this argument, aren't you?

"I won't try to back these up with individual facts because it's hard to do."

LOL

[Lefty48197]

127. Do you have a link to that source?

I mean the one that says just how quickly semi-automatic weapons can be fired?

[LinuxUser]

130. It was a letter

It was a letter that she sent to me personally in response to a letter that I sent her asking her to vote "no" on the AWB. Unfortunately I have already recycled that letter or I would post a scan of it for you. It's full of lies and mis-statements of fact like the one I quoted. In doing some quick Google searches, I found that some other people have also received that same form letter. Here's a link from someone else who got it:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/m-n-misc/nemerov061304.htm

The paragraph that he quotes there is exactly the same as the one I got. "250 rounds of ammunition in seconds" is simply a lie. As I said, there just aren't any portable firearms which can do that. Let's say that 250 rounds in seconds is a rate of fire of 50 rounds per second. The very fastest submachineguns out there fire about 20 rounds per second. That means it takes them 50ms to chamber a round, ignite it, extract it, and return to the starting position. To achieve that cycle of events in less than 50ms means needing to apply more force to the base of the cartridge and the extraction groove. It's just a fact of physics that brass can't take that much force without deforming. Deformed brass means the gun jams and you get zero rounds per minute. The only way to overcome this is to use multiple barrels, which is what a gattling chain gun does. It has usually between five and seven barrels which spin, so each barrel can spend 50ms or more getting rounds in and out of each barrel, and still be able to put out a hundred rounds in a second or so.

But there's just no physical way you can carry and fire a chain gun. They are just too big. They also need big heavy batteries to drive their electric motors and of course they use a lot of ammo. And finally, if you fire 100 rounds in a second, that is an enormous amount of recoil. No one could stand up to it. So... "250 rounds in seconds." Maybe in Hollywood.

[Fulcrum]

133. Figure it out yourself.

It fires as fast as you can pull the trigger, so that should give you some idea. Now, each firearm design will differ greatly in actual speed because they have different trigger travel lengths depending on how far the trigger needs to move to reset.

[Lefty48197]

166. I know, it's kind of funny how the gun nuts try to cloud this issue

I used to own a semi-auto .22 rifle that could hold a whole bunch of rounds, something like 18. I filled that thing and emptied it many many times. It seems to me, I could empty all 18 of those rounds, in about four or five seconds. A good friend of mine (a gun nut) owned a whole different variety of weapons, and I got the opportunity to shoot many of them, including his AR-15 that was chambered for the Russian round. I remember emptying that magazine in a very short number of seconds too.
Funny thing is, everytime I "speculate" as to how fast those types of weapons can fire rounds, I get a response like, "Oh gee. I don't think those little old guns can fire that many bullets that fast." The funniest part is that the ones who post those responses, are the ones who clearly have fired those very weapons themselves.
I don't have a whole lot of respect for the posters who use that tactic, and expose themselves.

[LinuxUser]

148. That's easy; I don't have a source

I don't have a source because I don't need a source. I'll explain.

The highest rate of fire on any single-barrel full-auto weapon is about 20 rounds per second. They can't go any faster than that, because to go faster you would need to exert more force on the cartridge during chambering and extraction, and experience has shown that if you want to that in less than 50ms (ie, 20 rounds per second) the forces are too high for the brass cases, so the case starts to deform and the gun jams in bad ways. So as long as we're talking about one barrel and conventional ammunition, the metal just can't go faster than twenty rounds per second. Even 20 rounds per second is a bit too high to be reliable; most machineguns are closer to ten rounds per second.

So, that's in a full-auto gun. What about a semi auto?

A semi auto has to go through all the same mechanics as a full auto, of course, but it has to add one more step: it waits for a trigger pull each time it fires. So there is no possible way it could go faster than a full auto, because you still have all the constraints about getting brass in and out of chambers without ripping it apart. So, 20 rounds per second would the the "theortical maximum" for a semi-auto, also.

But in reality, the slowest component of the semi-auto system is the human pulling the trigger. A trigger pull is just a short, light movement. It's a movement of about 1cm or less (depending on the gun type obviously). It's light; it's usually in the range of 2lbs (at the very minimum, and semi-autos never have triggers this light) to about 10lbs (this would be considered a bad, excessively-heavy trigger).

So, how many times per second can you move your finger back and forth a distance of 1cm, exerting a force of about 3 lbs on the "pull" stroke? That's the question. You can test this yourself right now if you like. I have had plenty of experience at shooting ranges and firarms schools, so I know what I can do and I know what some of the best shooters around can do. The top shooters can manage to get perhaps four shots in a second with a semi-auto. If you don't believe this, try it with your own finger, or watch some videos of IPSC competitors. These IPSC competitors are very very good, probably the best shooters out there for this kind of thing, and they seem to be getting up to about four shots per second.

So... it's not a source but hopefully this provides a good answer to your question. Bottom line: The maximum theoretical rate of fire of a single-barrel gun firing conventional ammo is about 20 rounds per second, and in practice, the best semi-auto shooters can manage about four. I wouldn't be surprised if there's someone out there who once upon a time managed to get more than four, but that's stuff for the record book.

Oh, and going back to the original Feinstein lie: 250 rounds in "seconds". We have to also include magazine changes. A typical pistol magazine holds 15 rounds, so if we're talking about a pistol, this 250 rounds requires 16 magazine changes, each of which takes a skilled shooter about one to 1.5 seconds. Typical rifle magazines hold 30 rounds, so with a rifle we would be talking about 8 mag changes, but rifle mag changes are slower. The biggest rifle magazines available are 100-round drum mags, but even then, we would need to do two mag changes, and drum magazines are a PITA so those would probably take several seconds each. Finally, there do exist a very small number of belt-fed semi-autos that would not require any mag change.

So... the quickest possible semi auto with the quickest possible shooter in the world... let's see. He's got a belt-fed semi-auto and a big long belt of ammo. He's got an excellent quick trigger finger. He doesn't get tired after pulling the trigger hundreds of times. Maybe, just maybe, in this absolutely ideal situation with a very rare weapon, he could fire those 250 rounds in about 50 seconds, if his finger didn't get worn out after the first 20 rounds or so. And the quickest possible single-barrel machinegun could fire those 250 rounds in about 12.5 seconds, if you somehow rigged up a belt feed to a submachinegun (no such thing exists).

So, Feinstein is just lieing. Does that answer your question?

I'm always happy to provide facts to back things up.

[iverglas]

78. well, that was easy

SEC. 50. PROHIBITION.
No person shall have, keep, maintain or have in his possession or under his control any wild and potentially dangerous animal as defined in Section 51, unless excepted therefrom pursuant to Sections 50 through 66 of this Chapter. (Added by Ord. 81-78, App. 2/10/78)

As I understand the USAmerican date notation system, "2/10/78" = February 10, 1978.

It looks to me like the municipal by-law (ordinance?) provision you cite was added in 1978, and became applicable on February 10, 1978.

Diane Feinstein became Mayor of San Francisco in November 1978:

http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/new_site/biography.php?id=965&showgroup=

Irritated by his low salary as a civil supervisor and needled by depression <Daniel> White resigned his post. Days later, however, he returned to City Hall and entreated the mayor, George Moscone, to reinstate him. Moscone refused. On the 27th November 1978 White loaded his pockets with ammunition, concealed a pistol and entered City Hall through a basement window to avoid a metal detector. He seemingly systematically sought and killed Mayor Moscone before turning his attention to Harvey Milk. He shot and killed the man before calmly leaving and later turning himself in.

It was as a result of the murder of then-Mayor Moscone that Feinstein became Mayor.

Some nine months after the ordinance in question became effective.

If the provision in question:

1. Sub-Order Serpentes, all front and rear fanged venomous snakes and all species of the Families Boidae and Pythonidae.

had been added or (amended to include boa constrictors) after the original ordinance was made and became effective, one would ordinarily expect the amendment date to be shown.

So ... look how easy it was to establish, at least prima facie, that the claim that "boa constrictors are illegal in San Francisco ... because when Feinstein was mayor there, someone threw a boa constrictor into her car, and this frightened her, so she banned them" was false.

In other words, it appears that ...

"As to the provenance of this code, whether from a spiteful mayor (doubtful) or an established legislative process (more likely), I cannot attest."

... it isn't only "doubtful" that the original claim was true, it's pretty much undoubtedly true that it was false.

Ta very much.

Of course, it was also so ridiculous on the face of it that one really just had to wonder why anyone would believe or repeat it, were s/he not quite simply too credulous to have survived childhood.

[Squatch]

85. Whoever wrote that code needs a lesson in taxonomy

Also prohibited are

"Order Primata (primates), including but not limited to the chimpanzee, the baboon, the orangutan, the gibbon, and the gorilla, excepting the Family Hominidae (man)."

Chimpanzees, baboons, orangutans, gibbons, gorillas, and humans all belong to the Family Hominidae.

So, by substitution:

Also prohibited are

"Order Primata (primates) including <members of Family Hominidae>, excepting Family Hominidae."

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

90. No, humans are the only living members of the Hominidae

The California Fish and Game Code says you don't need a permit to import or keep as a pet a human being.

2118. It is unlawful to import, transport, possess, or release
alive into this state, except under a revocable, nontransferable
permit as provided in this chapter and the regulations pertaining
thereto, any wild animal of the following species:


(a) Class Aves: (birds)
Family Cuculidae (cuckoos)
All species.
Family Alaudidae (larks)
Skylark, Alauda arvensis
Family Corvidae (crows, jays, magpies)
All species.
Family Turdidae (thrushes)
European blackbird, Turdus merula
Missel (or mistle), thrush, Turdus viscivorus
Family Sturnidae (starlings and mynas or mynahs)
All species of the family, except hill myna (or hill
mynah),
Gracula religiosa (sometimes referred to as Eulabes
religiosa)
Family Ploceidae (weavers)
The following species:
Spanish sparrow, Passer hispaniolensis
Italian sparrow, Passer italiae
European tree sparrow, Passer montanus
Cape sparrow, Passer capensis
Madagascar weaver, Foudia madagascariensis
Baya weaver, Ploceus baya
Hawaiian rice bird, Munia nisoria
Red-billed quelea, Quelea quelea
Red-headed quelea, Quelea erythrops
Family Fringillidae (sparrows, finches, buntings)
Yellowhammer, Emberiza citrinella
(b) Class Mammalia (mammals)
Order Primates
All species except those in family Hominidae...
:freak:

[Squatch]

93. Try again...

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/classification/Hominidae.html#Hominidae

Hominidae include all those genii listed in the prohibition.

[Squatch]

108. Sorry, meant "genera"

genii, indeed.

[Squatch]

94. More...

http://www.sidwell.edu/us/science/vlb5/Labs/Classification_Lab/Eukarya/Animalia/Chordata/Vertebrata/Mammalia/Primates/Hominidae/

[slackmaster]

98. 'tis a nit - not all taxonomists agree

I haven't studied taxonomy for a long time, but even a quick Google search shows that not all sources agree what genera belong in the Hominidae.

[Wickerman]

91. set game match

or whatever the antiquated language is for that antiquated old game of Kings (or do kings get wrestling? or bowling? roller derby?}

The hard-on for Dianne is so amazing - like the RKBA crowd doesn't have enough legitimate reason to be annoyed at her, they make shit up.

Actually, I saw it posted on a website somewhere, pretty reliable, I'm sure, that she is responsible for the San Andreas Fault. Yes, its her Fault.

[Columbia]

95. See post 89

[Wickerman]

96. ok, I call back the match

let the hate-fest of the Dem continue. :eyes:

[Columbia]

97. What hate fest?

Seems to be just a mystery to be solved.

[iverglas]

101. see post 100

and don't be so easily swayed!

;)

[Wickerman]

104. uh, geeez, my first day on the job

and what kind of muck did I wade into?

Folks warned me the Gungeon was treacherous. Ok, keep playing nice, don't be mailing any lethal snakes ot one 'nother (or me).

[enfield collector]

92. based on sen feinstiens past record, I would not be surprised

if she posesses a concealed boa-constrictor permit, to go with her CCW permit.

[iverglas]

103. and based on yours ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=93534&mesg_id=93578&page=

... I wouldn't be surprised at ... well, much of anything.

[enfield collector]

114. someone has to call her on her hypocracy.

[iverglas]

117. yada yada yada blah blah

yada blah blah blah yada yada blah yada blah blah blah.

Feinstein is a hypocrite, and the earth is flat, and the moon is made of green cheese, and I'm the Queen of Romania, and you're a circus clown.

And we're through the looking glass.

How else to explain the repeated assertion of nonsense coupled with the steadfast refusal to acknowledge or respond to rebuttals of the nonsense?

Oh yeah. There is another explanation. When one finds people making absurd and vicious allegations about a Democrat at DU, there often is.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrSandman]

164. Does it matter...

Six shots can be held by the 740 in .30-06(5+1) and in the Savage 99 in .300 Savage(5+1). Anyone crazy enough to take on six probably has a pretty high confidence in his ability to not need multiple shots or a complete disregard for his life, probably both.

[Squatch]

41. Why I gave up hunting with a rifle long ago...

I traded in my 30-06 for a bow about 15 years ago. Happened after a hunting trip to the Poconos in PA.

Shooting light was around 6 AM. Shots started ringing out at about 5 AM. The last thing I want is some city slicker who picks up a rifle once a year taking a shot at me as I'm making my way to a stand, thinking he heard a deer.

I think, as a whole, bowhunters take hunting a lot more seriously than rifle hunters, and I feel much safer in the woods where nobody has a gun. (although there is a fair share of idiot bowhunters...)

Man, hunting sure has taken a turn for the worse with this incident...f***ing a**hole.

[Krs216]

69. I heard he use a regular hunting rifle

Not that its relevant, anything designed to kill should be illegal. But as long as * is in charge, everyone will have the right to kill anyone he/she feels needs a killin.

[Billy Ruffian]

71. You're ready to give up your kitchen knives?

They were designed to kill.

No one has the right to kill anyone they feel needs killing. This guy has been apprehended and will be tried. If convicted, he'll be punished.

[Lefty48197]

128. Kitchen knives were designed to slice, not kill.

You kill the animal with a gun, then you cut it up with the knife. Get it straight!

[Billy Ruffian]

134. Knives don't kill?

Then why is Scotland getting ready to restrict sales and possession of knives?

[iverglas]

141. hark! who's there??

"Knives don't kill?"

To what unseen/unheard person are you speaking??

Am I missing out on whole conversations here, somehow?

What idiot said "knives don't kill"? Point me in his/her direction, and I'll wear out a keyboard with chiding for you.

(For those interested in keyboards, there are two types: fast and slow. The trick is to get yrself one of the less common "fast" ones, which require far less force per keystroke and allow for much greater speed, and less wear and tear on keyboard and typist, at least for the accurate typist. Always glad to be of assistance.)

[Billy Ruffian]

142. Look at post 128

Lefty wrote Kitchen knives were designed to slice, not kill. as his subject. That's who I was asking.

Start typing.

[iverglas]

143. amazingly enough, I did

Lefty wrote Kitchen knives were designed to slice, not kill. as his subject.

And you wrote "Knives don't kill?" as yours.

That's exactly why I figured there must be some posts in between the two that I was missing.

That's who I was asking.

I see. Gosh, if I were going to throw a question at him at random, I might be more likely to say something like "want a houseguest for a week?" (Well, on second thought, Michigan might not want to be where I want to vacation.) What made you choose your particular random question?

End typing.

[Columbia]

107. Update

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/23/hunters.shot.ap/index.html

Hunter suspect says he was shot at first
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 Posted: 2:04 PM EST (1904 GMT)

HAYWARD, Wisconsin (AP) -- A man suspected in the killings of six hunters told investigators he began firing after he was shot at first and some of the victims called him racially derogatory names, according to documents filed Tuesday.

...

Vang told investigators he didn't realize he was on private property when he climbed the tree stand, according to the probable-cause statement released Tuesday.

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.

...

[Redneck Socialist]

109. I kind of figured there was more to this story

and I thought there would be a racial element to it as well.

This is an ugly story that is only going to get uglier before it is all done.

[slackmaster]

111. It's going to take a trial to straighten out what really happened

n/t

[Redneck Socialist]

112. Even then I don't think we will know...

what "really happened." There are going to be charges and counter charges and the "truth," such as it is, will likely get lost along the way.

The shooter will most likely be going away for a long time. Not that that will be any consolation to his victim's families.

[Fulcrum]

121. Truth?

The truth will never be known, he removed the immediate witnesses from the equation. Either way, he should go away to jail. Firing at the person with the rifle might have been justified, but he took out the whole hunting party.

[iverglas]

147. good grief

"Either way, he should go away to jail. Firing at the person with the rifle might have been justified, but he took out the whole hunting party."

If we assume -- as you seem to be doing -- that the facts as reported by the person whose shots killed the others are true, we have this situation:

A member of a visible minority facing a group of individuals carrying firearms, one of whom has already fired at him, and one or more of whom has already made racist comments to him.

Whither self-defence??

If YOU were surrounded by a bunch of armed individuals who hated you for some personal characteristic of yours (make it race, religion, political persuasion) and were saying unpleasant things to you indicating that they hated you because of that characteristic, and one of them had fired on you, what the fuck would YOU feel entitled to do??

Had there been no shots already fired, I'd very much hesitate to call anything done by the individual in question self-defence, myself. But once any one of the mob had shot at him, then unless all the others immediately pounced on the one who had done the shooting and disarmed him and clearly indicated that they had no intention of following suit, I don't know what anyone could reasonably and legitimately have expected the first intended victim to do. Sit there and wait for somebody with better aim to take the next shot? Drop his firearm and raise his hands? And is that what YOU would do?

I also don't know what other outcome there could have been to this story. A member or members of a group of people motivated both by legitimate property interests and racial hatred engage in threatening speech (anybody who wants to say that racist verbal abuse engaged in by armed men isn't threatening will have to admit to speaking tongue in cheek). The person whom they are threatening is armed. One of the group shoots at that person. What possible other outcome can anyone -- including the mob of racist assholes in question -- have expected?

But hey, I'll bet they were all law-abiding gun owners. Right up until the instant when one of them wasn't ... and when his actions led directly to all, or almost all, their deaths.


(misedit edited)

[Fulcrum]

149. good grief is right

From what I've heard, only one of the hunters were armed (the one who supposedly fired). Vang, himself, said he chased down another unarmed person, who was screaming for help, shooting at him and killed him. Still sound like a reasonable reaction?

Isn't everybody law-abiding until they break the law, gun owner or not?

[Retired AF Dem]

150. Problem is the shooter should of never been able to buy a

gun, but his wife failed to press charges against him in 91 when he held a pistol to her head, and several more times in domestic assaults.

[Scout]

153. hmmmmm, let's think about this.

you said:
shooter should of never been able to buy a gun

and that it was his wife's fault he had a gun because she failed to press charges in the past

when he held a pistol to her head

but, but, didn't he already have a gun when he held a gun to her head and she should have pressed charges so he couldn't have a gun now to shoot people with???

yeah, stupid woman, it's all her fault </sarcasm>

[Lefty48197]

159. This demonstrates one major problem with many gun owners

A significant number of gun owners think ownership of guns, and the 2nd amendment give them the right to use guns in an assaultive manor. Flashing guns, hinting at use of guns, and yes, firing shots in the direction of somebody else are all assaultive uses of firearms. For whatever Goddamned reason, certain mentally ill people feel a gun gives them an extension of power, and the belief that nobody can take that power away from them. Those people are exactly the ones who should not be allowed to own guns.

[jody]

160. Interesting assertion, so what amendments would you make to federal law,

TITLE 18 § 922. Unlawful acts?

[RoeBear]

152. Here is the police report...

...it is a pdf file.

http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/nov04/statement112304edits01.pdf

[Remmah]

161. Saiga vs SKS?

I saw a Saiga once? IS that an SKS?

[LinuxUser]

163. NO! Saiga is not an SKS

Saiga makes a variety of rifles and shotguns patterned after the AK-47 action:

http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/models/ka178.html

and the importer:

http://www.eaacorp.com/firearms/saiga/rifles/index.shtml

The AK-47 uses a rotating locking bolt with two lugs. It has a distinctive feature of a safety lever that also acts to "seal" the action.

The SKS is a totally different action. It uses a tipping locking mechanism (no rotation). The safety is not like the AK's safety. The original SKS design had fixed 10-round magazines, too, unlike AK and Saigas which have detachable box magazines. The AK was designed to be "select fire" (can be semi-auto or full-auto) from the very beginning. The SKS was never made as anything but a semi-auto gun. Of course there are bozos out there who have made full-auto SKSes at various times, but the action is not designed for it.

The SKS is still a cheap rifle; you can get them in the range of $150 to $400. There are also gunsmiths making new trigger packs for it to improve it and make it safer. I just wish someone would make a beautiful wood stock for it.


Also, the Saiga is available in a variety of calibers, including 762x39, 556 NATO, 762 NATO and the new 22-caliber Soviet round. The SKS has only ever been made in 762x39, AFAIK.

So these are totally different guns.

Functionally, there is little difference between a Saiga 762x39 and an SKS. Both are semi-auto, so they have the same "rate of fire". It's quicker to reload a Saiga, of course, because it has a detachable mag, but the SKS has ten rounds, so it has plenty of ammo "on tap". And what comes out the muzzle is about the same, if we're comparing the Saiga in 762x39 and the SKS.

Here's more about the SKS:

http://www.surplusrifle.com/sks/index.asp

I think the SKS is quite a beautiful rifle. Certainly looks more elegant than the AK stuff. It would be very cool to have a modern re-release of the SKS, maybe in 556.

[Bullseye10]

162. Here is more info on Vang!

http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetails.do;jsessionid=98A2C2D404F8333FBB3C07C066287527.render5?countyNo=24&caseNo=2002FO000220&cacheId=C547D52DCB24D3775C6ADA216AB48485&recordCount=1&offset=0#charge_detail