VA Tech Shootings

[Rufus_1611]

I will state up front that I think it makes no sense for citizens to be allowed to have guns except in really, really exceptional cases.

The above argument (from Rufus_1611) is certainly not to be dismissed lightly. It is entirely possible that an armed citizenry is a deterrent to tyranny. However, 3 problems come to mind:

1. Even if guns do deter tyranny, this does not suffice to show that allowing citizens to bear arms is the best choice, when all other dimensions of the problem are factored in. It is possible (note that I am only saying that it is possible) that the value in deterring tyrrany is less than the harm created by having guns in the hands of unstable people like the Virginia Tech person. So we need to look at what is optimal in the "big picture" sense.

2. The deterrent to tyrrany argument might fail in light of the specific nature of the military forces that we have today as compared to 200 years ago. With a modern military with such advanced and powerful weapons, it seems rather implausible that citizens with small arms would be much of a deterrent. There was not a similar imbalance 200 years ago when it was pretty much "our small arms vs the government's small arms".

3. We need to consider that a number of societies with strict gun control have existed for decades without tyranny coming to pass. I would think that most Western European nations since WWII fall into this category along with places like South Korea and Japan.

On point 2...How would you compare the weaponry of the United States military to the insurgents in Iraq? What is your evaluation of the insurgents ability to address their enemy?

On point 3...Do you consider Switzerland to be a Western European nation? What do you feel prevented axis powers from invading Switzerland in WWII?

 

[Andre]

Remember the French riots, last year, when citizens watched their cars get burned, businesses looted, while the property owners stood their, helpless, and even the police retreated.

Fair enough, but an anecdote does not make the case, just as the V Tech shootings, as an event unto itself, is not a particularly strong item of evidence in favour of gun control (even though I believe in gun control).

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Lots of the gun control hysteria is because the media lies to Americans, and refuses to print the truth about how many times guns save the life of the good guy.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2004/09/

• Lawrenceville, Georgia—At 3:00 a.m., an estranged former boyfriend kicked in a woman’s front door. She had received a protective order against the ex-boyfriend because of “a history of drug addiction, violent behavior and threats.” He was shot four times as he entered the apartment. Police said that the attacker, if he survived his injuries, would likely face charges of burglary and aggravated stalking.
• Albuquerque, New Mexico—At just after 5:00 a.m., a homeowner called police saying that someone was trying to break into his home. Police reported that while waiting for help to arrive, the homeowner defended himself by shooting the intruder in the arm.
• Louisville, Kentucky—As a robber tried to hold up a Shelby Food Mart, he was shot by a store clerk. The judge who heard the case said that the clerk had acted responsibly and that he “was viciously attacked by this animal.”
• Raceland, Louisiana—A man and his girlfriend offered two men a ride. One of the hitchhikers drew a gun and told the girlfriend to stop the car. The man then drew his own gun, fatally shooting the hitchhiker who was threatening them.
• Toledo, Ohio—A store employee wounded one of two men who tried to rob a West Toledo carryout. The employee had received his concealed handgun permit just three days earlier. The employee’s father said, “My son did what he had to do …Money can be replaced; lives can’t.”

And there's more.....


But much more than a bias toward bad news and drama goes into the media’s selective reporting on gun usage. Why, for instance, does the torrential coverage of public shooting sprees fail to acknowledge when such attacks are aborted by citizens with guns? In January 2002, a shooting left three dead at the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. The event made international headlines and produced more calls for gun control. Yet one critical fact was missing from virtually all the news coverage: The attack was stopped by two students who had guns in their cars.
The fast responses of Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges undoubtedly saved many lives. Mikael was outside the law school returning from lunch when Peter Odighizuwa started shooting. Tracy was in a classroom waiting for class to start. When the shots rang out, chaos erupted. Mikael and Tracy were prepared to do something more constructive: Both immediately ran to their cars and got their guns, then approached the shooter from different sides. Thus confronted, the attacker threw his gun down.
Isn’t it remarkable that out of 218 unique news stories (from a LexisNexis search) in the week after the event, just four mentioned that the students who stopped the shooter had guns? Here is a typical description of the event from the Washington Post: “Three students pounced on the gunman and held him until help arrived.” New York’s Newsday noted only that the attacker was “restrained by students.” Many stories mentioned the law-enforcement or military backgrounds of these student heroes, but virtually all of the media, in discussing how the killer was stopped, failed to mention the students’ guns.
A week and a half after the assault, I appeared on a radio program in Los Angeles along with Tracy Bridges, one of the Appalachian Law School heroes. Tracy related how he had carefully described to over 50 reporters what had happened, explaining how he had to point his gun at the attacker and yell at him to drop his gun. Yet the media had consistently reported that the incident had ended by the students “tackling” the killer. Tracy specifically mentioned that he had spent a considerable amount of time talking face-to-face with reporter Maria Glod of the Washington Post. He seemed stunned that this conversation had not resulted in a more accurate rendition of what had occurred.....

 

[Rufus_1611]

Lots of the gun control hysteria is because the media lies to Americans, and refuses to print the truth about how many times guns save the life of the good guy.
...

Wonderful post...great examples.

 

[Ed Edwards]

In June 1999 cancer came to my house, by Dec my first wife was
dead. I had a useless handgunin my house; handguns don't
work against cancer

 

[rbell]

An armed citizenry is a deterrent to tyranny...

Tyranny occurs on a large scale, and a small one.

And we've seen several instances (Hurricane Katrina, anyone?) in which the government is ineffective. Then, it becomes your job to protect yourself and loved ones.

Thanks for this info - do you have a source for this. I am interested in see some real numbers so that when I discuss the issue here it has bearing.

Here's a wiki link that shows the FBI's crime stats for 2005: Note where Washington DC, Baltimore MD, and Detroit stand...all have very strict gun control laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cities_by_Crime_Rate

A recent study at the University of Chicago by criminologist John Lott, Jr., and economist David Mustard has found that homicide, assault, rape, and robbery are lower in areas of the United States where the public is allowed easy access to carrying concealed firearms in public:
http://www2.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/guns.html

 

[Andre]

:

2. The deterrent to tyrrany argument might fail in light of the specific nature of the military forces that we have today as compared to 200 years ago. With a modern military with such advanced and powerful weapons, it seems rather implausible that citizens with small arms would be much of a deterrent. There was not a similar imbalance 200 years ago when it was pretty much "our small arms vs the government's small arms".

3. We need to consider that a number of societies with strict gun control have existed for decades without tyranny coming to pass. I would think that most Western European nations since WWII fall into this category along with places like South Korea and Japan.

On point 2...How would you compare the weaponry of the United States military to the insurgents in Iraq? What is your evaluation of the insurgents ability to address their enemy?

On point 3...Do you consider Switzerland to be a Western European nation? What do you feel prevented axis powers from invading Switzerland in WWII?

Regarding point 2: I assume that your intended point is that Iraqi insurgents, armed with modest weapons, are able to mount a powerful resisitance to the American presence - hence an armed citizenry can effectively resist a "government". I would respond by saying that a strong element of the insurgents' firepower lies with their "bombs" (car bombs, IEDs, etc.), not their handguns and rifles. I speculate that if they only had handguns and rifles, they would be rather rapidly suppressed.

Regarding point 3: You may have a point here but we all need more information in order to have a fair degree of confidence as to why the axis did not invade Switzerland - their reason may have had nothing to do with the fact that the Swiss all have guns.

 

[Andre]

Regarding the use of "examples". I think it should be clear to all that the nature of this issue is such that examples are of limited value in establishing what the best policy is re gun control / gun freedom.

I had a grandfather who smoked 2 packs a day for 60 years and died at 90. This does not mean that it is safe to smoke. If Fred is one of 5 survivors of a plane crash that kills 200, does this mean it is safe to be in crashing airplanes?

I am going to assume that everyone here is seeking a solution that minimizes death and injury to "innocent" parties, and is willing to sign up for whatever solution that is, even if it turns out to conflict with the intuition that we have some sort of inalienable right to bear arms, or, on the other hand, conflict with the intuition that the best course is always non-violence.

I am in favour of whatever solution works - whatever system is the best at minimizing suffering and death. Either way, the nature of the beast is such that one will always be able to find a boatload of counter-examples to even the optimal solution. So I humbly submit that giving examples of specific "one-time events" is not a good way to argue this issue, from either perspective.

 

[Andre]

Here's a wiki link that shows the FBI's crime stats for 2005: Note where Washington DC, Baltimore MD, and Detroit stand...all have very strict gun control laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cities_by_Crime_Rate

A recent study at the University of Chicago by criminologist John Lott, Jr., and economist David Mustard has found that homicide, assault, rape, and robbery are lower in areas of the United States where the public is allowed easy access to carrying concealed firearms in public:
http://www2.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/guns.html

I have not read the second study but I wish to submit the following for the reader's consideration.

The fact that areas with strict gun control laws have higher rates of gun violence is not an item of evidence to the effect that gun control does not work, unless and until other variables are properly controlled for.

In the cases of cities like Washington, Detroit, and Baltimore, it is entirely possible that other factors, poverty, overcrowding, gang presence, etc. are responsible for the higher rates of violent crime. It is entirely plausible that strict gun laws have made the rate lower than it would otherwise be.

Other variables need to be controlled for. As I have said, I did not read the second study, so I stand to be corrected if other factors have been somehow ruled out (although I would imagine that would be difficult to do).

And, I look forward to your saying "pish-tosh" to my argument.....

 

[Rufus_1611]

Regarding point 2: I assume that your intended point is that Iraqi insurgents, armed with modest weapons, are able to mount a powerful resisitance to the American presence - hence an armed citizenry can effectively resist a "government". I would respond by saying that a strong element of the insurgents' firepower lies with their "bombs" (car bombs, IEDs, etc.), not their handguns and rifles. I speculate that if they only had handguns and rifles, they would be rather rapidly suppressed.

Alright, so what is an IED? An Improvised Explosive Device. IEDs are not something insurgents gave a no-bid contract to an arms manufacturer like Lockheed. They are scratching and clawing to improvise a bomb to defend/attack their enemy and somehow that, combined with small arms, is causing havoc for the most powerful military in the world.

Regarding point 3: You may have a point here but we all need more information in order to have a fair degree of confidence as to why the axis did not invade Switzerland - their reason may have had nothing to do with the fact that the Swiss all have guns.

We can not be certain of the whys. However, we know that Hitler collected the guns of the citizenry where he could and if I was a despot bent on taking over a nation, I would certainly pick the unarmed folks before I'd try to attack the nation where all of the men have rifles.

 

[Eric B]

Murders happen in Massachusetts, where it is next to impossible to get a legal hangun. Respectfully, I believe the "gun free zone" was a contributing factor in this.

I don't have an answer for the law, 'cept maybe if New York didn't make it so hard to own a gun, people wouldn't go to Virginia. Maybe U.S. citizenship could be a requirement, but I don't have a problem with inter-state gun sales.

You need to check where you're hearing stuff, then.

To purchase a handgun, you have to pass a background check. This guy was apparently squeaky clean.

The only people who will be prevented from buying guns with more gun control laws will be law-abiding citizens. Do you realize just how few guns used in crimes are legally purchased? This one was an exception.

There are many times more people who are beaten to death than shot. Does this mean that we need to pass laws making it more difficult to obtain blunt objects?

More people die in car accidents than are murdered with guns.

Many times more people are stabbed than shot.

And more people die from deer attacks than snake bites.

Perception rules this day and age of emotionalism; logic has little value any more. People percieve that flying is dangerous and driving is safe, yet air travel, mile for mile, is many, many, many times safer.

Why?

Because when a plane crashes, it's spectacular! Hundreds dead all at once. Film footage galore.

The same with guns.

You don't hear about Joe Thug who was beaten to death by Billy Bob and Jim Bog Gangsta.

But, this murderous rampage in VA was spectacular!

So, it's perceived as being worse, even though it's not.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I have personally stopped three crimes using a handgun and one with a rifle, and only once had to even fire a warning shot. Four people were arrested.

All with guns that certain knee-jerk reactionaries want to ban because they look scary.

As an aside, while driving across Canada, I was not permitted to take my Ruger 10/22, because it's an "assault weapon", even though the bullets could bounce off a windshield. However, I could take my 91/30 and my 8mm Mauser, even though I could shoot someone through the entire car. They don't look scary.

"Squeaky clean"? They must not have really checked much of anything, or ignored alot of stuff. They're saying now that this kid had been acting strange two years ago, was suicidal, stalking people, alarming professors with his paper assignment writings, and was even sent to a mental facility. That is what "control" such as background checks are designed to look for. Why does a person like that need to be allowed to buy a gun without any sort of regulation?. Again, 'cause I got mine, and I'll finish him off and ride off into the sunset!

Talk about emotions and gut feelings over logic! All the responses still assume
1)that all gun control legislation aims to take all guns away from law abiding citizens. You're hearing something that largely isn't being said. A few radicals or activist types arguing on the second amemdment, maybe. But the right for a law abiding citizen to own a gun is not what is really being challenged by authorities. (Who are the ones who really count when it comes to legislation).
2)And you're still trying to argue for this grand showdown where eveyrhting turns out right, (like in the movies). It may have worked sometimes, ut what people seem to be arguing is don't have any regulation; let the criminals buy guns, and we'll have ours and we ill always stop crime. But in many cases, it simply does not work out like this. But this is all an individualistic "It works for me; later for what happens to others" mindset anyway. Even COPS who are the Law, and armed, and trained to use guns are are getting killed with these guns (And this is what sparked the last round of this debate when NYC cops were killed, and NYC's mayor and others were complaining about this a few months ago; while the VA gun dealers thought it was some sort of joke or something).
3) Then, it's "well other people get killed in other ways, so why make an issue of guns? That's like cut off your nose to spite your face. So because there are other deadly situations in the world, why not try to improve what we cam. Someone can kill you with a knife, so you might as well let them have guns too. That certainly isn't thinking logically!

I have not read the second study but I wish to submit the following for the reader's consideration.

The fact that areas with strict gun control laws have higher rates of gun violence is not an item of evidence to the effect that gun control does not work, unless and until other variables are properly controlled for.

In the cases of cities like Washington, Detroit, and Baltimore, it is entirely possible that other factors, poverty, overcrowding, gang presence, etc. are responsible for the higher rates of violent crime. It is entirely plausible that strict gun laws have made the rate lower than it would otherwise be.

Other variables need to be controlled for. As I have said, I did not read the second study, so I stand to be corrected if other factors have been somehow ruled out (although I would imagine that would be difficult to do).

:thumbs:
So to add, these places generally have more people (because of the big cities) and hence those big city problems, which right there will create more violence. The criminals simpoly come to states like VA, and then take the guns back to the city. And all people, so afraid of the big bad govt. coming and taking away their gun can think is "well, those states should have lax gun laws, so when those criminals buy the guns in their own state, if all the other citizens also have guns, then the crime rate would drop". No, because in all of those gun battles on the streets, both sides are armed, and that is usually when innocent bystanders (often inside of their houses and not even knowing what's going on), get hit by stray bullets.

Again, people try to throw "you're using emotion and not logic" at the other side, but that is just what this side is doing, when all you can think about in this issue is some idealized situation where someone comes after YOU or someone close to you, and you successfully stop the crime!
So while the dreaded "liberals" may have their "idealism" that doesn't really work in the real world, so do we, as we go to the opposite extreme, and attempt to turn the entire citizenry into heavily armed vigilantes and think this will create safety.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Well, Eric, I guess there will always be folks who choose not to arm themselves, and you have a point with the non-citizen angle. But I think I have represented my point well enough, and further statements won't bear fruit. You are one of the more level-headed posters & I refuse to answer your well written posts with snarky comments. I disagree with you, to the point where I believe the laws in N.Y., D.C., & Mass are so dangerous that I'm glad for states like Montana, & Virginia.

 

[Andre]

Well, Eric, I guess there will always be folks who choose not to arm themselves, and you have a point with the non-citizen angle. But I think I have represented my point well enough, and further statements won't bear fruit. You are one of the more level-headed posters & I refuse to answer your well written posts with snarky comments. I disagree with you, to the point where I believe the laws in N.Y., D.C., & Mass are so dangerous that I'm glad for states like Montana, & Virginia.

Let me ask you this question: Do you (or anyone else for that matter) have any non-anecdotal evidence that gun control does not achieve its intended purpose of reducing the toll of death and injury in any society, with the important qualification that other relevant variables have been adequately controlled for?

I do realize that this is not the whole story. To be fair to the "pro gun freedom" camp, I will say that even if gun control does reduce crime, one needs to factor in any evidence that gun freedom deters governmental tyranny. It is possible that, on balance, gun freedom is the choice that is best in the truly big picture sense (where the possibility of government tyranny is considered) even if such gun freedom were to produce more crime, murders, etc. in the short term.

 

[rbell]

Let me ask you this question: Do you (or anyone else for that matter) have any non-anecdotal evidence that gun control does not achieve its intended purpose of reducing the toll of death and injury in any society, with the important qualification that other relevant variables have been adequately controlled for?

I do realize that this is not the whole story. To be fair to the "pro gun freedom" camp, I will say that even if gun control does reduce crime, one needs to factor in any evidence that gun freedom deters governmental tyranny. It is possible that, on balance, gun freedom is the choice that is best in the truly big picture sense (where the possibility of government tyranny is considered) even if such gun freedom were to produce more crime, murders, etc. in the short term.

some thoughts:

• so the University of Chicago study wasn't good enough? I have a feeling any evidence presented will be labeled "anecdotal" and discarded.
• It's not just government tyranny prevented! It's also that hoodlum who breaks in your house to kill you and take your stuff. That's tyranny on a small scale, and that scenario is prevented many times over by a citizen exercising his/her second amendment rights.
• "Gun freedom" is not the cause of more crimes and murders. Most of the crimes & murders committed in this country are caused by guns that are not owned legally--by people who can't legally own a gun. More gun control will not prevent those crimes anyway.
• Are there tragedies...in the form of accidents and the like? Absolutely. And though tragic, we cannot create a society in which we live accident and incident free. That's the price we pay for freedom.
• No one has addressed another argument for gun ownership...as I mentioned before: What if there's a Katrina-type scenario, where all civil authority has broken down? Because I guarantee you, in that situation...the scumbags are armed.

 

[Andre]

so the University of Chicago study wasn't good enough? I have a feeling any evidence presented will be labeled "anecdotal" and discarded.

I clearly stated that I did not read this study and I qualified my post accordingly. One of the links went nowhere and the other went to a place where it appears that one has to pay for a copy. If you have read this study, perhaps you can tell us how this study controls out other variables.

It's not just government tyranny prevented! It's also that hoodlum who breaks in your house to kill you and take your stuff. That's tyranny on a small scale, and that scenario is prevented many times over by a citizen exercising his/her second amendment rights.

This is not evidence - its merely a generic description of a scenario. This is merely an assertion which could be true.

"Gun freedom" is not the cause of more crimes and murders. Most of the crimes & murders committed in this country are caused by guns that are not owned legally--by people who can't legally own a gun. More gun control will not prevent those crimes anyway.

Even if this is so, if a person steals a gun from a person who owned it legally, the mere fact of the lawful owners' freedom to buy the gun has resulted in it being "out there for the taking". Let's be clear: if the "bad guys" get the guns through any opportunity that is present due to the freedom of "good guys" to have guns, that particular opportunity would be absent if the good guys did not have that freedom.

I think your argument here is speculation - how do you know that more gun control will not prevent these crimes? If the controls are real and they are enforced, it would certainly seem to me that the opportunities for the "bad guys" to get guns would be significantly reduced. What if I were to suggest that gun manufacters would be required by law to prove to government officials that each gun they made went either to the military, the police, or other highly specific classes of people (e.g. customs agents, bank guards, etc.? Do you really think that the "bad guys" would not have a lot harder time getting their hands on a gun?

Are there tragedies...in the form of accidents and the like? Absolutely. And though tragic, we cannot create a society in which we live accident and incident free. That's the price we pay for freedom.

Americans are not the only ones in the world with freedom. Many societies have existed in stable form for decades with arguably the same freedom and yet with gun control.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Well lets just make cars illegal as they kill so many people.

 

[Andre]

Well lets just make cars illegal as they kill so many people.

This is not very convincing at all. The use of a car is so integral to life in modern society that the banning of cars would have a massive negative impact on our society (unless other transportation alternatives are made available). Guns are entirely different - they are used rarely (thank God) and no one's legitimate life goals would be severely impacted if their gun is taken away, unless, of course, guns do indeed serve a moderating effect on crime in our society. I have never denied that this might be true - I am open to some evidence for this.

 

[rbell]

I think your argument here is speculation - how do you know that more gun control will not prevent these crimes? If the controls are real and they are enforced, it would certainly seem to me that the opportunities for the "bad guys" to get guns would be significantly reduced. What if I were to suggest that gun manufacters would be required by law to prove to government officials that each gun they made went either to the military, the police, or other highly specific classes of people (e.g. customs agents, bank guards, etc.? Do you really think that the "bad guys" would not have a lot harder time getting their hands on a gun?

Some thoughts then...

• the stringent government controls would put all gun manufacturers out of business (which is likely the goal of gun opponents, anyway). So the government will then go into the gun-making business.
• The bad guys already have guns illegally. And yes, I think they'll get them with no problem.
• Since you can make the same arguments with knives as you can guns...are you willing to subject cutlery to the same standard as firearms?
• I lived in Louisville KY several years ago. There was one road to our apartment complex. One night, a man broke in to a downstairs neighbor's apartment. He called the police. However, a train was stalled on the tracks. This man got in, beat the guy up, stabbed him, ran out on foot. Because of the tracks (and quite honestly some incompetence by the particular officer, no police help arrived for 40 minutes after the call. You tell me if this guy's for gun control or not.
• cut it anyway you want to...this is a restriction on freedom. I'm not for restricting freedoms based on speculation. That is not what has made America great. I'm not even conceding that this is a "gray area"--but even if it was, if it's a "gray area," I'm sticking with freedom.

Sorry about the U of Chicago link. It worked a year ago, and I have the printed form somewhere. I'll try and run down at least excerpts online.

Suffice it to say that Lott and Mustard (the authors) were surprised at what their research concluded. But hopefully I'll find that so you can see.

 

[Andre]

the stringent government controls would put all gun manufacturers out of business (which is likely the goal of gun opponents, anyway). So the government will then go into the gun-making business.

If it turns out that an armed citizenry is, on balance, a bad thing (and I suspect that it is), the loss of some jobs seems worth the benefit to society. One could construct a similar argument about tobacco. Society would be far better off without tobacco even at the cost of the loss of jobs in the tobacco industry

The bad guys already have guns illegally. And yes, I think they'll get them with no problem.

You think that the bad guys will get guns with "no problem"? This seems highly implausible if the government really got serious about gun control. And the fact that people already have guns illegally is of little relevance - as time wears on, the guns will wear out. Or, more importantly, ammunition sales could be subject to equally stringent controls, rendering guns useful only if thrown. Perhaps you will argue that people can make their own ammo and / or repair their own guns. This line of reasoning might indeed be beneficial to your position.

Since you can make the same arguments with knives as you can guns...are you willing to subject cutlery to the same standard as firearms?

Obviously not. Knives, unlike guns, have numerous legitimate uses in society.

cut it anyway you want to...this is a restriction on freedom. I'm not for restricting freedoms based on speculation. That is not what has made America great. I'm not even conceding that this is a "gray area"--but even if it was, if it's a "gray area," I'm sticking with freedom.

This "restriction on freedom" argument seems like an appeal to "apple pie" - I could use the same kind of appeal to argue for freedom to go around smacking people on the head with melons. The argument seems overly vague.

And, to be frank, is America really any "greater" than any of dozens of countries in the world with gun control? America is indeed more powerful, of that there is little doubt. Again, the non-specific appeal to "freedom" seems a little on the soft side.

 

[amity]

The right of a citizen to bear arms is a deterrent to tyranny. All other rights of the citizen are upheld by this amendment. Men like Mao, Stalin and Hitler favored gun control, men like Washington, Jefferson, and Webster favored the 2nd amendment.

So are you saying that bearing arms against the federal government would be a legitimate reason for the public to be armed?

This reasoning is not working for me any longer. I really cannot think of a single legitimate reason for ordinary citizens to be armed at this point in our history. At one time much of the populace hunted to put meat on the table. That is not the case presently. What other legitimate reason is there to keep a gun? Self-defense would hardly be a valid argument if a single glock suddenly cost $5000 on the black market.

I was raised in a very gun friendly household. My stepfather is a champion rifleman. He shoots most every weekend, and may make the hall of fame this year. He owns maybe $100,000 worth of rifles of all sorts, has even made some himself. Never killed a single living thing. Taught me to shoot when I was 8. But I am sure he would be willing to give it all up to have safety in our streets and in our homes. And that IS within our reach if we resolve to banish guns within 10 years.