By David E. Petzal and Philip Bourjaily

The unsung hero of this blog is a young man named Nate Matthews, who not only runs the Gun Nut, but the entire Field & Stream and Outdoor Life websites as well. He puts things up and takes things down, and is the one who decides when a rant has run its useful life.

He also suggests rants, and this morning he came up with the idea of my picking the top five of the year.

“P**s off,” I said, filled with yuletide cheer, “you want it, you do it.” And by crackey, he did. Here are Nate’s Five Favorites, with short comments by myself. To paraphrase Tiny Tim,

“God help us. God help us, every one.”
 
1. What Gun Would You Use To Kill A T-Rex?
It will probably turn out in the face of future paleontological research that T-Rex was a veggie eater who knitted comforters and attended church regularly. Killing one would be like blasting the Easter bunny. T-Rex was around for something like 40 million years, but we will be lucky if we last another 40 (years) as a species.

“‘Cheer up sad world,’ it said, and winked. ‘It’s kind of fun to be extinct.’”— from Carnival of the Animals

2. A Not-So-Sad Farewell To The Crocodile Hunter
This generated more comment than any other rant and caused lots of people to lust for my blood. I’m sorry Steve Irwin died, and sorry for his wife and kid, but he should have realized that it was time to grow up.
 
3. The Gun Nut Challenge
A gratifying number of you (7,500) took the quiz, but entirely too many of you got entirely too many correct answers. So next time, no more Mr. Nice Guy. If you want to get a perfect score on Quiz Number Two (coming soon), you’ll have to be John Moses Browning.

4. How To Write An Anti-Gun Editorial
Just trying to be helpful.
 
5.  The Death Of Winchester
This was my very first post, and not much has changed. The Model 70 and the Model 94 are still defunct, and despite much rushing about and optimistic dithering about reviving it, Winchester’s New Haven plant is equally dead. I’ve been told by multiple sources that Browning will be announcing a Model 70 made in Japan by Miroku, but Browning denies it.
 
Anyway, that’s the best for this year. If you don’t like them, write in your comments to Nate and tell him you lust for his blood.
 
Editor's Note: Hey, at least he didn't give out my address.

By David E. Petzal and Philip Bourjaily

A recent issue of Sports Afield Magazine ran an unusual piece about elephant “hunting” in Africa, in which the pachyderms are  shot with a dart gun. This follows the current fad for darting white rhinos and posing with the doped-up beasts as they sleep off their nembutol, or whatever it is.

Ted Kerasote, who wrote the article (titled “The Green Hunt”), was enthusiastic about the practice, as it allowed you to “hunt” elephants without killing them. Well, OK, if it makes his liver quiver. The only problem I have with the whole business is that it’s not hunting. To illustrate this, let’s look at a couple of other pursuits.

The object of professional boxing is see to who can pound the stuffing out of whom. Olympic boxing, on the other hand, counts only the number of punches landed, and goes to some lengths to make sure that no one is inconvenienced by an authentic ass-whipping. That is the reason it’s followed by so many with such rapt boredom. Can anyone name an Olympic boxing champion in any weight division since Sugar Ray Leonard won gold in 1976?

And then there is bullfighting, which is not considered a sport by its fans but a form of theatre, the object of which is the demonstration of courage in the face of death. Take the death out of it and all you have is a guy in tights embarrassing both himself and a bull in a stadium full of people.

Hunting, and especially the hunting of dangerous game, is about life and death. If you try to kill an elephant there is always the chance he will kill you, and the death of one of you is what gives the enterprise its meaning.  If you yearn to stick a needle in the rump of some poor elephant, by all means do so, but don’t file the activity under “hunting.” It ain’t.

By David E. Petzal and Philip Bourjaily

According to The New York Times of December 8th, New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has coerced (via lawsuit) six out-of-state gun dealers into allowing court-monitored supervision of their operations. These dealers are allegedly among 27 dealers who are alleged major sources of handguns used in crimes in New York.

But if the mayor is really interested in the safety of his citizens, he must also deal with an armed, dangerous group that periodically runs amok in his city. Am I talking of drug dealers? Biker gangs? No, I’m referring to New York’s Finest, who sometimes seem unable to remember their training when the lead is flying.

Bashing cops is not my intent. I simply think that they could use assistance in their dangerous work, and I’d like to suggest two steps that might provide it.

First, every undercover police operation should be accompanied by an officer from Internal Affairs and an attorney, preferably from the American Civil Liberties Union. These two-person units would be called Fusillade Management Teams, and their job would be to monitor each armed engagement, making sure that that the people being shot at are actually shooting back, and that no one officer fires more than good taste dictates.

Second, I think that every police sidearm should have a three-shot limiting device installed in it. The Army did this with the M-16 A1 rifle, preventing trigger-happy troops from burning through a whole 30-round magazine with one pull of the trigger. Thus, an NYPD officer would fire three shots and his automatic would lock open, giving him time to reflect on the department’s stated policy that its cops are supposed to fire only three rounds and re-evaluate the situation before re-commencing fire.

Anyway, that’s my proposal. No need to thank me. I’m just a concerned citizen trying to do his civic duty.

By David E. Petzal and Philip Bourjaily

This rant was inspired by Mike, who put four shots in a grizzly even though the first one was perfect. His guide gave him exactly the right instruction—on any dangerous-game animal, you keep shooting until there is no sign of life. More than one hunter has ended up in the obituaries after firing one “perfect” shot and letting it go at that.

And I’d take it one step beyond that. If you have an animal down, and dying, you shoot it again and end its suffering. There is nothing worse in the sport than watching someone stand over a creature that is expiring and refusing to fire a second, merciful shot because he wants a one-shot kill.

There is only one thing you can decently do if you have an animal down—end it. Right now. Even if it spares the creature only a few seconds of suffering, you are obliged to pull that trigger.  Sorry to preach, but I have seen a number of very bad sights over the years and they all involved some poor animal writhing in pain for the sake of some “hunter’s” ego.