New Word: zumbo

zum-bo

-noun

1. A supposed hunting and firearms advocate that I talked about here.

-verb

1. to commit professional suicide by saying something that angers your customers.

Seriously, that verb definition is really gaining steam on the internets. You may be seeing it shortly.

Yeah, somehow I'm still fascinated by this story. I sorta wrote about this on the ol' blog on a whim. If you need to be caught up, check out the link above. In a nutshell, Jim Zumbo was a Hunting and Firearms writer that had columns in prominent gun magazines and had his own hunting TV show. He wrote that he thought perfectly legal AR and AK type firearms are "terrorist rifles" because they look scary even though they function no differently from any other common rifle. There was a large backlash from his customers and he quit the magazine and was canned from Remington.

The pro-gun folks are not the only people commenting on this story. Below is one of many anti-gunner editorials I've seen that decided to stick their nose in this for the sole purpose to try and depict the NRA and gun owners as evil and unreasonable.

He got zumboed

Bang! The response from the owners of such weapons was astonishing in its fury. More than 6,000 e-mails barraged the Outdoor Life Web site demanding that Zumbo be fired. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, Zumbo resigned. Sponsors immediately deserted Zumbo's TV show, which hasn't been on the air since.

But hell hath no fury like an assault rifle owner scorned, and they weren't finished zumboing Zumbo yet. The NRA jumped into the ring like an outlaw tag-team wrestler. It suspended all ties with Zumbo...

The losers lost more than the winners won in this ugly episode. Print and broadcast outlets that should have stood behind Zumbo based on clear First Amendment principles allowed themselves to be brow-beaten by a Second Amendment lynch mob. So much for protecting the Constitution...

Remember when I quoted Outdoor Life's official response? Remember when I quoted Remington's official response? What did they say? "While Mr. Zumbo is entitled to his opinions and has the constitutional right to freely express those opinions, these comments are solely his, and do not reflect the views of Remington..."

So it is the official position of Eugene, Oregon's Register-Guard newspaper (since this is an editorial and not just a letter from a reader) that a private business is not allowed to fire somebody that publicly opposes what they do and effectively alienates their customers? How does that work?

What if Mr. Zumbo wasn't talking about the political topic of gun control and "assault rifles"? Let's say he worked for Honda. Let's say he publicly said something that was as equally insulting as it was false. Let's say his public statement was this:

"I think people should only buy Honda Accords. As drivers, we should push to outlaw Honda Odyssey minivans because only really, really fat people need them."

(Please don't get on me about the above analogy, guys. I'm trying to think of something as insulting as Mr. Zumbo calling me a "terrorist" and admit I'm failing. I'm open for suggestions though.)

Would the Register-Guard criticize Honda for firing this spokesperson after receving 6000 emails in a matter of hours from enraged customers? Or is this editorial displaying some anti-gun bias?

Edit to Add:

OK, I thought of a better (and perhaps more appropriate) analogy. Unfortunately, it doesn't talk to the fact that his employer (a private company) fired him because he called for a ban on their products. It does speak to the importance of the issue. Let's say Mr. Zumbo, as a journalist, made this statement about the rights guaranteed by our Constitution:

"I see no need for the existence of the internet in exercising our First Amendment rights. As writers, we should push to outlaw this means of free speech as it is a tool that terrorists use."