"Gillis said only one rifle was found at the scene, near Roidt's body.
However, Vang said the hunters had several guns."


This from CNN http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/23/hu...hot/index.html

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ...
"Matt Lang" wrote in message
om...

The guy takes off and maybe someone fired a shot or even close to him
(no doubt wrong but NOT cold blooded murder). Then the guy with the
violence history snaps and takes them all down with his semi auto (why
the **** is he hunting with an assault weapon???? Isnt that one
against him?). shots in the back, dying people finished and all.

Can you provide the definition of an assault weapon? I keep hearing the term
"military style assault weapon" in the media and by gun control proponents
but, I don't understand the difference between a Remington Model 1200
carried by a civilian and a member of the armed forces. One is a hunting
weapon and the other is killing weapon.

good point. I dont think there isnt , but ask in rec.guns.

There are however semi auto rifles which are very suitable to fire
lots of controlled rounds in short time, suitable for combat and there
are semi auto rifles which arent. This is no black and white criteria
though...

If one hunts with an i.e. AR15 I would say he is hunting with an
assault rifle ..

Matt

Also, they Hmung or whatever they are, do not resepect individual
private property rights as a culture, just to add a little perspective
to your specualation...

Except THEIR OWN I suppose, but the others property is the hmong
property.

I am sure if you step on hmong property and try to hunt there they
wont be as nice. But then what else are they gonna do besides shooting
you?

It must feel safe to have these people there ...

Matt

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
What a biased comment. Now we have drunken hunters, that tried to
execute a
scared guy.

It was early in the morning, as some were traveling in the dark to the
deer
stand. They find a guy in the stand who does not belong there and
accost
him. Whether they fired or not, the scared guy shoots a couple. And
from
the news report. They radio, probably on FRS radios that one of the
people
has been shot. Several of the "hunters" are still at the cabin and jump
in
ATV's to help the shot person. They could have assumed it was a hunting
accident. They did not bring their guns along, as they were on a recue
mission for an injured person. They left the guns at the cabin. They
would
still be called hunters, as they were at their property to hunt deer,
and
you would call them hunters even if they were in camp. And nowhere is
there
any mention of drunkeness.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
If the 8 were armed they would have executed him and not the other way
around.

Matt



If the eight were unarmed, how the heck were they "hunting"?

Get a bunch of guys staggering around in a beer buzz vs. one sober guy
scared
for his life. Evens the odds a bit. Then add the factor of some of your
buddies
getting killed when the intended victim of a cruel "joke" takes the
shot
seriously and begins firing back. If you aren't prepared to see people
going
down on both sides of you and you panic as a result, the odds are
evened a
bit
more.

All those missing weapons are likely squirreled away in the bushes
someplace.
How many people go hunting without a gun? Never heard of anybody doing
that,
except the stereotypical cheating husband. :-)




"Don't take you guns to town, son...leave your guns at home."

You're posting as if the facts were known here, Bill. All we really know
so far is what both sides have said about the tragedy. That's probably
all we'll ever know with any certainty, unless there is a genuine
confession from one or more of the participants.

"Unarmed hunters." What a crock.



And if you were still an incompetant reporter, you would still write stories
about people and call them hunters, even if they were in the local bar. It
is still an extremely biased comment by Mr. Gould. There is no report of
drinking, etc. But he has drunken hunters trying to execute a scared guy.
Biased to the max, and not data to support any of it!

Hello Harry,

I would tend to agree with you on "no practical...reason" but wouldn't that
reasoning also have to apply to road licensed 100+mph vehicles?

We've done a bit of pest/pig hunting where a 20-round magazine wasn't
enough, even resorting to duct-taping 2 of the magazines together. The rest
of the hunting we do only requires 2 or 3 quick shots at most from a pump
shotgun or a couple of well placed shots from a scoped bolt-action rifle.
Thus, the level of practicality may differ from one individual to another.

Gun-crazed may be one view of how our society is and incidents like this,
though rare, only serve to feed more into that view. You will often hear us
gun owners arguing that passing gun-control laws will only target
law-abiding citizens instead of passing crime-control laws that target
criminals, but this incident does not help our case at all unless it is
proven that it was ALL in self-defense (unlikely).

As for our foreign policy, I would agree with you if you can give me an
example of one instance when we have invaded or showed aggressiveness
towards a truly peaceful nation. We should fight our battles off-shore
whenever we should ("could/can" views may differ, again).

Franko

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Franko wrote:
That part of the report is suspect. The part of the report about five
"hunters" with one gun is very suspect.

I feel sorry for those people who got shot and who got killed,
especially
the ones who had nothing to do with threatening the Hmong who may have
felt
he was being surrounded "again" by more "reinforcements."

If, indeed, he was shot at first, the guy that took that first shot
(also
first one to be killed) is partially responsible for the deaths of his
friends. Sad and tragic.

One can look at this as either a case for or against semi-automatic
rifles
with large capacity magazines. If this was a case of self-defense
(initially, that is), then it was deadly unfortunate for the group of
hunters to have picked on a single person, armed with a
not-even-high-powered weapon, but nevertheless, well armed for the
situation. If this was not a case of self-defense, then it was like
that
lunatic who killed several tourists in Tasmania that resulted in a
nationwide ban on semi-autos and pump-actions.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...
The unarmed hunters were coming because they got a radio call that
someone
had been shot. They were not out hunting when the call came. This
according to the newspaper report.


There's no practical, non-aggressive reason for a civilian to own a
rifle with a 20-shot magazine, just as there is no practical reason for
a civilian to own a semi-auto pistol with a 12 or 13 shot or larger
magazine. Most of these weapons are sub-par for hunting or target
practice. Their primary purpose is to shoot other human beings.

Unfotunately, we've a pro-violence, gun-crazed society. No other modern,
western nation suffers from the kinds of lethal citizen versus citizen
violence our country endures, nor our pooh-poohing of it when it
happens. Why do I say pooh-poohing? Because, despite the fact that we
have endless gun violence in this country, we never really do anything
about it.

And the Dodge City, armed cowboy mentality permeates our foreign policy,
too. We think our guns (just a metaphor for all our weaponry) allow us
to get away with any sort of violent aggressiveness we please.




--
A passing thought:

"We stand for things." —George W. Bush, Davenport, Iowa, Aug. 5, 2004

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
What a biased comment. Now we have drunken hunters, that tried to
execute a
scared guy.

It was early in the morning, as some were traveling in the dark to
the
deer
stand. They find a guy in the stand who does not belong there and
accost
him. Whether they fired or not, the scared guy shoots a couple.
And
from
the news report. They radio, probably on FRS radios that one of the
people
has been shot. Several of the "hunters" are still at the cabin and
jump
in
ATV's to help the shot person. They could have assumed it was a
hunting
accident. They did not bring their guns along, as they were on a
recue
mission for an injured person. They left the guns at the cabin.
They
would
still be called hunters, as they were at their property to hunt deer,
and
you would call them hunters even if they were in camp. And nowhere
is
there
any mention of drunkeness.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
If the 8 were armed they would have executed him and not the other
way
around.

Matt



If the eight were unarmed, how the heck were they "hunting"?

Get a bunch of guys staggering around in a beer buzz vs. one sober
guy
scared
for his life. Evens the odds a bit. Then add the factor of some of
your
buddies
getting killed when the intended victim of a cruel "joke" takes the
shot
seriously and begins firing back. If you aren't prepared to see
people
going
down on both sides of you and you panic as a result, the odds are
evened a
bit
more.

All those missing weapons are likely squirreled away in the bushes
someplace.
How many people go hunting without a gun? Never heard of anybody
doing
that,
except the stereotypical cheating husband. :-)




"Don't take you guns to town, son...leave your guns at home."

You're posting as if the facts were known here, Bill. All we really
know
so far is what both sides have said about the tragedy. That's probably
all we'll ever know with any certainty, unless there is a genuine
confession from one or more of the participants.

"Unarmed hunters." What a crock.



And if you were still an incompetant reporter, you would still write
stories
about people and call them hunters, even if they were in the local bar.

Nah. When I was a reporter, I never wrote any articles about hunters.



Too incompetent?

I read that some were at the club house and got the call that someone had
been shot. So they went to help. Why would you go get a gun when going to
help a person who was shot while hunting? You would assume he was shot
accidentally by a buddy, or himself.

"rudolfgun" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
The unarmed hunters were coming because they got a radio call that
someone
had been shot.

The unarmed hunters...

What a great newsgroup this is.



Makes more sense than your passed gas thoughts. They would be referred
to
as hunters, even if they were in camp. You, in your reporter days would
have referred to them as hunters. I guess you were as incompetent as a
reporter as you are at delivering Democratic party votes.


real fishy here.
some one got shot... call his hunter friends whho kjnew thhat some got
shot... and thhose hhunters came running withh no gun in thheir
hands... in thhe middle of the wood, deer hunting?
where are all the guns?
do they have gun?
Or do they play smart to get that guy by telloing police that they are
unarmed?
Real fisshy here...

rudolf

"Franko" wrote in message
...
Hello Harry, ( snip)
As for our foreign policy, I would agree with you if you can give me an
example of one instance when we have invaded or showed aggressiveness
towards a truly peaceful nation. We should fight our battles off-shore
whenever we should ("could/can" views may differ, again).
Franko

Hello Franko: The United States of America did invade the peaceful country
of Granada.

Jim Carter

On 26 Nov 2004 08:32:06 -0800, (Backyard
Renegade) wrote:

(Gould 0738) wrote in message ...
If the 8 were armed they would have executed him and not the other way
around.

Matt



If the eight were unarmed, how the heck were they "hunting"?

Get a bunch of guys staggering around in a beer buzz vs. one sober guy scared
for his life. Evens the odds a bit. Then add the factor of some of your buddies
getting killed when the intended victim of a cruel "joke" takes the shot
seriously and begins firing back. If you aren't prepared to see people going
down on both sides of you and you panic as a result, the odds are evened a bit
more.

All those missing weapons are likely squirreled away in the bushes someplace.
How many people go hunting without a gun? Never heard of anybody doing that,
except the stereotypical cheating husband. :-)


Could it be that they were not drunken bums as all you folks seem to
say... Funny how all of the slurs here are at the victims Anyway,
could it be that they all woke up, stepped out to have a smoke or
stretch, saw the guy or signs of him and innocently went over to ask
him to leave, in fact, not having started "hunting" for the day yet?
Of course, that kind of thought would make me crazy I guess... OH,
BTW, they are investigating to see if the guy might be involved in a
similar execution a couple of years back in a similar private property
situation..
Also, they Hmung or whatever they are, do not resepect individual
private property rights as a culture, just to add a little perspective
to your specualation...

How, when you say 'whatever they are' can you also be knowledgeable
enough to know their culture?
John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

JohnH wrote in message . ..
On 26 Nov 2004 08:32:06 -0800, (Backyard
Renegade) wrote:
SNIP
Also, they Hmung or whatever they are, do not resepect individual
private property rights as a culture, just to add a little perspective
to your specualation...

How, when you say 'whatever they are' can you also be knowledgeable
enough to know their culture?
John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

I am not a psudo-scholar, sorry... It was the spelling of the group
name that I was unsure of...