Shooters Speak
 
 
After four days of near-constant criticism from enraged shooting
enthusiasts, Outdoor Life has announced that hunting writer Jim Zumbo's
resignation from that publication had been offered and accepted. His final
column, according to a statement posted on their website by Todd W. Smith,
OL's Editor-In-Chief, will appear in the April 2007 issue which has already
gone to press.
 
We respect Mr. Zumbo's First Amendment right to free speech," Smith wrote,
"we acknowledge his subsequent apology and admission of error. However,
Outdoor Life has always been, and will always be, a steadfast supporter of
all aspects of the shooting sports and our Second Amendment rights, which
do not make distinctions based on the appearance of the firearms we choose
to own, shoot or hunt with.
 
We regret this turn of events, as Mr. Zumbo has been a good friend to this
magazine and lifelong advocate for hunters and hunting rights."
 
  
 
 An object of discussion, dissention and distrust? 
  
 
 
 
 
Comments Zumbo posted regarding the AR-15 style rifle enraged AR owners and
Second Amendment supporters, kicking off what could conservatively be
described as a firestorm of protest.
 
That firestorm included thousands of emails and phone calls to companies
with whom Zumbo has enjoyed longstanding relationships, among them
Remington, Mossy Oak, Cabela's, Gerber knives, and Hi Mountain Jerky. In
response, each of those companies made the decision to sever those
longstanding ties rather than risk the boycotts promised by enraged AR
owners.
 
The decisions were not, however, without considerable pain.
 
One company executive who asked not to be identified, described the mood as
"sad, almost like a death" or "a bad dream that just keeps going." Those
reactions were understandable, given Zumbo's more than forty years as an
outdoor writer. But following thousands of emails from angry gun owners
vowing never to support anyone associated with Mr. Zumbo, prudent business
practice left few alternatives.
 
Equally amazing was the overwhelming response afterwards. While
AR-enthusiasts and staunch Second Amendment advocates trumpeted the
"victory" they simultaneously encouraged immediate purchases from those
same companies, to send what one writer called "a clear message that we are
really watching and are aware of your support for us."
 
Reports from the companies say orders did, indeed, come from new customers
along with many phone calls congratulating them on their decision.
 
Earlier in the week, the National Shooting Sports Foundation's Doug Painter
commented on the unprecedented event, emphasizing the importance of
refocusing that tremendous negative energy. "We should remind everyone the
focus of this is like winter sports," said Painter, "it isn't about
snowboarding or skiing; it's about saving the mountain."
 
Others have not been so forgiving.
 
Randy Luth, president of DPMS/Panther Arms, a firearms manufacturer
exclusively in the AR-15 market space, minced no words in a statement
posted on his website:
 
"A recent comment by Jim Zumbo, a writer for Outdoor Life Magazine,
indicating his dislike of AR-15 Rifles for hunting purposes is a disgrace
to American Gun Owners!" Luth wrote , "His apology is not accepted by this
company. We will begin to disconnect from Zumbo's sponsors immediately!"
 
The Shooting Wire has been inundated with similar messages from thousands
of enraged gun owners and company executives. Those messages ranged from
unintelligible and unprintable to thoughtful. In every instance, however,
the message remained consistent: Zumbo's ill-considered writing had touched
off the festering resentment shooters have toward hunters.
 
Gun Talk Radio's Tom Gresham wrote that one lesson we could pull from the
experience was that the "let them take those ugly, black guns" attitude was
"common among hunters and competitive shooters." Anyone believing that,
Gresham wrote, "is a fool" citing the hunters and shooters from England and
Australia who never believed their guns would be taken.
 
Also, he observed, the world of communications had changed, as the entire
episode had taken place over a three-day weekend, "entirely on the
internet."
 
Others, including Michael Bane, host of Shooting Gallery on The Outdoor
Channel, blogged that the Zumbo fiasco was, in fact, the "tipping point"
that led shooters to "flex their muscles".
 
For Jim Zumbo's many colleagues and friends, however, this has not been a
phenomenon observed dispassionately, it quickly assumed the characteristics
one angry writer called a "lynch mob." Mirroring the regard with which Mr.
Zumbo has been held prior to this calamitous posting, some asked that
reporters "remember all the good he had done throughout his long career."
As expected, a few were scathing in their criticism of the quality of the
reporting, alleging "bias" - or worse. All, however, shared an
unwillingness to make their comments on the record.
 
Today, the story has advanced beyond the unfortunate consequences of one
writer's having expressed his personal opinion, although those consequences
have been unprecedented and noteworthy.
 
Now the story is how to handle public acknowledgment of the longstanding
rift between those who use firearms in their chosen recreational area, but
believe some additional regulation of "other guns" would be acceptable and
those to whom even the suggestion of additional regulation is not only
unacceptable, but intolerable.
 
It is not yet to the point where cooler heads will prevail. Emboldened by
their newly asserted presence, "recreational shooters" are searching for a
common voice through which they can speak some to those companies that, at
least until this week, seemed unaware of the economic power they could
wield - should they choose.
 
We'll keep you posted.
 
-- Jim Shepherd