A gun owner’s very thoughtful critique and invitation
I seem to have opened a real can of worms with Wednesday’s post about my trip to the gun show. Some readers have really liked it. I’m glad, because I legitimately had fun at the gun show, met some great people, and had fun writing the piece.
Admittedly, I also enjoyed making fun of many of the people there. Which is probably why one reader questioned my reporting abilities, and another, on Reddit.com, called me an asshole and compared me to a ring wraith from Lord of the Rings.
Fair enough. I never claimed my account was anything other than purely subjective. Being that I can, indeed, be an asshole, that’s bound to come through once and a while.
But a reader and gun-owner who goes by “techres” really astounded me with his grace, tact and thoughtfulness. His points were fair and humbling, without once being insulting. Despite our disagreements — some of which, I’m sure, may forever persist — he attempted to build a bridge. Which, honestly, is more than I did in my piece, even though I still stand by it.
Because I can, I’m reprinting it here, in full. For the record, I fully intend to take him up on his invitation.
Now, if only we could all talk about health care in such a reasoned manner:
Hello! I just want you to know I know the guy you met from INgunOwners and he is not a scary person. He’s actually a great and kind person. Now, he does have hands that can crush rocks, but I can only hold that against myself for not having worked out harder at the gym myself. Can’t blame him for that.
As for your article, you seem to have found what you were looking for in the gun community including some evidence of the fears outsiders have of our community. What can I say, other than every home has a crazy uncle George and if you come to Thanksgiving you will get to meet the whole family – all of it – and there you have it.
But that one glimpse is not an understanding of us in any real sense. I would instead invite you to get to know us better and then write a second article. This time you went looking for racists, nutjobs, rightwingers, and nazi daggers and you managed to find them. I would invite you to come and meet all the people and things you missed: Jews, Blacks, middle class business owners, Social Conservative, Gays, Boy Scouts, Libertarians, and even some progressives. That may only be one part of our community, but you came to the table and focussed on uncle George and missed the variety of people sitting at the table as well.
I come from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party and was raised by people who you would find easy room to joke with and feel comfortable. I know where you are coming from and would make a great bridge to talk with you and show you a better understanding of the full gun community which is what you missed in your fast visit to a gun show. You just cannot get to know people that way (too many strange folk and personal baggage). Hell, I write this from the very active gun community of Bloomington, Indiana. That last sentence alone should begin to break your stereotypes of our community.
So, let’s try something different. Let’s talk. Let’s eat a meal together. Heck, let’s run out to a range and do a bit of shooting. I can do any of the above. I could even make room for you at a rifle clinic and bring a gun for you to shoot and ammo to boot.
Why would I do that?
Because you deserve it and so does the real “gun community”. You obviously want to know more, and have an interest in guns but are hampered by your concerns about us. I can help you with both. And I can do it without trying to change your politics one iota. As my wife likes to say, “You changed my politics on guns without changing my politics.”
And why did I do that with her? Because she deserved it as well.
So, what do you say? Come on in, have a seat, we can get to know each other far better than at Thanksgiving dinner, or at the 1500.
Let’s make some time and perhaps someday you will write another article as a followup!
Follow this link and scroll down to the bottom for my response.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
“This time you went looking for racists, nutjobs, rightwingers, and nazi daggers and you managed to find them.”
From my reading of the your original article it doesn’t sound like it took too much effort on your part Austin to find the whack jobs. In reality though, as articulate and reasonable as this man’s response to your post is it pretty much misses the entire point. I don’t think anyone on the anti-gun side thinks everyone who is pro Second Amendment is crazy.
I might have some sympathy for the sentiments expressed by your reader if he didn’t attempt to dismiss the crazies in the pro-gun movement as just being “crazy old Uncle Joe”. Where is his outrage at the fact the NRA crowd not only offers succor to the racists and crazies but encourages them? What about some efforts at reasonable gun control instead of the knee jerk response of “from my dead cold hands” that we only hear from his side of the argument. I’m sure your reader is a very nice guy and I too would probably enjoy a robust debate with him over a cup of coffee and piece of pie but his response to your piece does little to change my mind on this subject.
Austin,
For the record i was one that really liked your piece. I don’t think you were particularly harsh at all on the gun crowd; in fact, you were a kitten. Also, i do agree and hold great respect for the ideal you are espousing. Namely: if we are to have real progress in society, then calm, rational debate will have to be allowed to take place of vitriol and hate mongering.
That said,
One thing i think our warm fuzzy gun loving ‘liberal’ is deluded by is his nice safe family existence in bloomington IN (beautiful town). I think techres doesn’t read much news, or take it very seriously if he does. techres should have to spend a year or two in Cuidad Juarez, Mexico, and see first-hand the effects of our gun policies on our neighbor to the south.
Humans so often form opinions by association, and i know living day to day in a quaint paradise like bloomington may skew one’s worldview as to how the smug, entitled Americans’ “Rights” are affecting those outside of our immediate sphere.
I know, I don’t have much room to speak, I’m not really doing anything about it either. But I would ask people to consider that what is sport and recreation for some, is a means to wage a narcotics war for others with a very real cost in human life.
I have to agree with andygeiger. What gun “rights” mean to a nice guy with a nice wife in Bloomington, probably means something altogether different to the mother of an 8-year-old boy recently killed by a thug firing shots into a house.
I don’t blame anyone for owning a gun, I just think the idea that you “should come and meet some of us” is condescending and limited in its view. The gun issue isn’t about nice law-abiding citizens, it’s about getting them out of the hands of nut jobs and thugs–something we don’t do a very good job of, and something I’d think “liberal” gun owners would be very interested in doing.
If the nut jobs and thugs had to fist-fight INgunOwners instead of pointing a too-easily-attained weapon at him my guess is it would be no contest. But here in the big city, every-other 14-year-old has a gun and an reason to use it. And that’s nothing like “going to the range for a bit of shooting” gentleman style.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ms. Wieland,
Thank you for your response. Mr. Geiger, with whom you agreed, commented on the gun policies in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. I’ve not been there personally (and I can’t speak to whether or not techres has) but last I heard, Juan Q. Public is not allowed to own a gun there of any caliber used by police or military, and few of those… at least legally. This is the scene we see repeated consistantly, both here in the US as well as elsewhere in the world: The more laws there are ostensibly to control the guns, the more crime there is with the (now illegal) guns, and the reverse is also true: The fewer laws there are controlling the access of those who obey those laws, the fewer violent crimes are committed.
Criminals do not obey laws. They fear only one thing, and that is being stopped. They know the police won’t be there when they decide to commit a crime, and if they are, the criminal simply stops and waits for the officer to leave. The only two things (people, in this case) guaranteed to be at a crime scene are the criminal and the intended victim, and only one is going to do anything to stop the crime.
It is already unlawful for the “thugs” and the “nutjobs” and the 14-year-old to have guns. Those laws do not stop them. Someone intent on committing a violent crime such as this is already beyond the point of caring that they are breaking the law, and to think that they will cease to obtain guns simply because there is one (or two, or ten, or a million) more law(s) against it is to engage in self-delusion. Nothing at all will stop them short of cell bars or six feet of dirt, and no pun intended, that’s the cold, hard fact. There will always be crime and criminals. We who obey the law and wish only to live peaceably must take the responsibility to be prepared to stand against them and say, “Not today, not here, not my family.” and be ready to back that up, with force, if necessary.
Have a great week.
In response to another comment. See in context »bobt,
I’m curious about the increase in crime being related to the increase in gun laws. Are there studies to support this point of view, is it anecdotal, or just coincidence?
I agree, gun laws don’t stop criminals or nut jobs, but I’m afraid had the homeowner in this case a weapon, he/she would not have stopped a crime like the one that took the life of an 8-year-old.
What about the law abiding citizen, whose kids get out daddy’s gun to show his friends and a kid ends up shot?
The only relationship I can clearly see between guns and people getting shot is this: More guns equal more tragic gun accidents and gun-related crime.
I don’t think anyone wants to take guns away from regular law-abiding citizens (I’ve considered owning guns myself), but it’s dangerous to see things only from the perspective of the law-abiding citizen,and not be able to see it from the point of view of the pastor performing ninth or tenth funeral this year for a victim of gun violence.
Maybe I’m just a mom who cares about kids getting shot, or maybe I’m just another liberal who loves government interfering in our lives. But I think I agree with Don Davis, who was quoted in Wednesday’s comments, “They need to go back to the blackboard, erase all the rules and start over.”
Now, if you don’t mind, this so-called liberal is going to Church and pray for all this gun violence to end so we can all sleep better at night.
In response to another comment. See in context »Ms. Weiland,
I can point to multiple anecdotal situations and also to the FBI’s annual crime report, wherein the likelihood of being a victim of a violent crime in Washington, DC was over double that same likelihood in the numerically closest state. (1.5% : 0.75%, if I recall correctly-it’s been a while since I looked at it) and DC had at the time and still has among if not the strictest gun laws in the nation.
Chicago’s gun crime rates are similarly legendary. Compare and contrast with (Orlando?) Florida in 1966; faced with an explosion of rape crimes, the police offered very publicized classes in self-defense, including with a handgun, to women, and the occurence rate of that crime dropped precipitously. Similar results were noted between Morton Grove, IL and Kennesaw, GA (suburbs, respectively, of Chicago and Atlanta)
Morton Grove enacted a total ban on handguns, even in one’s own home. Their violent crime rate shot through the roof. and is still high, even though their population count has shrunk. Conversely, Kennesaw enacted a “law” (without penalty if violated and with many intentional loopholes) requiring every homeowner who could legally do so to have a firearm and ammunition for it. This was over 30 years ago. Before their law, their crime rate was far above the national average. Today, their population has over quadrupled and their violent crime rate is still lower than it was before the law.
One such case would be an oddity, two a coincidence, but repeated in nearly if not every case, I cannot consider it anything but evidenciary.
You’re right. Having a gun and even having training to use it is not a Star Trek-style deflector shield. Neither it nor anything else can prevent all crimes. It does give that mother a fighting chance in a home invasion or robbery situation, and allows her to come home to her children that night. What does help in her case is promoting in all sectors of our population personal responsibility and the respect for self, others, parents, country, such that parents in each group remain with their partners/spouses and take pride in being parents, rather than leave the door swinging in their hurry to run away. Parents who are involved with their children do not usually raise children who grow up to go out and violate the rights of others.
You asked “what about the kid who gets Daddy’s gun?” Education is the key. When children are very young (say, up to three or four), you kid-proof the guns.. by which I mean they stay on your person or in the safe, without fail, every time. Even so, the kids even that young can begin learning the NRA’s “Eddie Eagle” rules, which teach that if a gun is found:
Stop! Don’t touch!
Leave the area!
Tell an adult!
They can and do learn this well and inculcate it. They will still be curious, so when they want to see yours, you sit down with them, you (the parent) unload it and let them see it, hold it, and get bored with it (they will) and hand it back. You teach them that all guns are always loaded. No exceptions. You teach them that you never point at anything you do not want holes in. No exceptions. You teach the that your finger never touches the trigger before the sights are on the target. No exceptions. Lastly, you teach them to know their target and their backstop-that is, where the bullet will go if it either goes through or misses the target. (you can find more info on this at corneredcat.com and specifically on this subject at http://corneredcat.com/Kids/firstlesson.aspx)
Regarding your comment about guns and people getting shot, allow me to modify it slightly and see if it’s not intuitively more correct to you.
You wrote:
More guns equal more tragic gun accidents and gun-related crime.
My change:
More guns in untrained or criminal hands equal more tragic gun accidents and gun-related crime. More guns in the hands of good people equal fewer gun accidents and less gun-related crime. (Look up a Dr. John Lott. He’s written several books on this, all of them exhaustively researched.)
You’re incorrect that no one wants to take guns away from even (or perhaps especially) the law-abiding, peaceable citizen. Case in point, in a suburb of Chicago, a man named Hale Demar shot a criminal in his home who had previously robbed him and now was back for more. The police arrested him because the town he lived in had a handgun ban in their community, even in one’s own home. The public outcry was huge, and the IL state legislature had a bill introduced to make an exemption to such laws in the event of that gun’s use in a self-defense situation. Among the IL state senators to vote against the bill that would have made actions such as Mr. Demar’s lawful was none other than Barack Obama, who has said he wants to criminalize all semi-auto handguns (that means you pull the trigger one time and fire one bullet, no matter how long you hold the trigger.)
Others with similar views include US Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), US Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), US Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and US Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Note also that Mrs. Feinstein made the statement on “60 Minutes” several years back that “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States-Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in- I would have done it.” and more recently commented that there was no anti-gun legislation right now, but that SHE would choose when it would come, “make no mistake”. That’s right, “when”, not “if”.
I agree, that from the perspective of the pastor doing all those funerals, there are many, and while one is too many, it is impossible to prevent any and all such needless deaths, simply because life is not safe- The risk of riding in a car is far higher than that of injury by firearm, and there are estimated to be many more firearms than there are cars in America.
I’m a dad who cares about people being shot, not just kids. Simply, I don’t want it to happen. I don’t get to make that choice for everyone, though, and when the “bad guy” decides someone is getting hurt or killed that day, my only concern is that it is neither me nor a member of my family, nor any other innocent. I want the people who own guns or who have one in their home to know how to use them properly and safely. To that end, I will offer this thought: You mentioned you had considered buying one. If you do, PLEASE go get some good training and practice with it both at the range and in “dry fire” regularly. Please teach your children good safety with them.
Go back, erase the blackboard and start over… I think I agree. Let’s start with the basic, fundamental right to assure your own safety, unencumbered by your government. If you hurt someone else, no matter who, with intent to do so, other than in defense of self, family, or other innocents, harsh punishment should ensue. Let’s, as a society, punish misbehavior, not ownership of things.
I hope you enjoyed your church service.
“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” –George Orwell
Have a nice week!
In response to another comment. See in context »Bobt,
I appreciate your thoughtful engagement in this discussion; however, I would invite you to follow the link to the article I cited above to fully understand the point I was trying to make. It is true that Mexican citizens have little or no access to guns. The tragedy therein, which is made in that article, as well as here is that the arsenal of firearms being used to wage a war against the Mexican government, its solders and citizens is coming from the United States, due to our laissez-faire regulation of firearms. One particular passage from the PBS article that drives this home:
Another important number cited in the piece,
So then, with the conservative number, 2% of 54,000, means there are almost 1,100 unscrupulous arms dealers in the U.S., that’s more than 20 per state, arguably more than enough to supply several militias and cartels with nefarious intent. I see the point you are making that if guns are completely outlawed then only the outlaws will have guns; but as you see here, the outlaws are getting guns, by and far, from the US and our negligent gun policies which are embraced and defended by a large (NRA) segment of our society.
I’m not arguing that the Second Amendment should be repealed. I am arguing that our gun policies are directly responsible for arming the Mexican drug cartels, as well as a large number of violent psychotic people in our society (e.g. Virginia Tech and Columbine are two examples just off the top of my head where suicidal psychotics easily obtained automatic weapons and used them to murder large numbers of innocent American children and parents).
Finally, I argue that we are deluding ourselves en masse and essentially condoning murder as a Nation as we are doing nothing to effectively change this. We are hypocritical, as a Nation, to say that since we have noble intent with our firearms that there should be no change in the control of their use and sale on the open market.
I end with a quote from my father, who served in Vietnam and whose opinion I respect in this matter above my own:
”The root of all evil is not money. It’s close, but not quite. The root of all evil is the people that make GUNS.”
Have a great week.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Geiger,
I will admit that I did not read your link before just a few moments ago. I did not primarily because I’m generally familiar with what those laws are. That said, I did go over it just now. I am struck with the similarity between this claim and the one Illinois makes and that Washington, D.C. has made. I find it quite interesting that the crime rate in Virginia, where peaceable, law-abiding citizens may carry concealed with a state CCW permit or may carry openly with no permit whatsoever, the crime rate is quite low, but across the river in DC, the crime rate is the highest in the nation- approximately double that of the highest state, last I read. This is counterintuitive, considering the claim: If indeed, more gun control=fewer legal guns=less crime, then the city that did not have a legal pistol sale and that very strictly regulated even what citizens were allowed to possess in their own homes (per the letter of the law, a citizen could not even move the gun from one room to another within their own home without a permit), DC should have had the lowest violent crime rate in the country.
Sure, it’s very easy to point the finger and say “It’s THEIR fault!” when things are not happening as you wish them to happen, but really, do you think the drug cartels are obtaining all of these fully-automatic firearms (which have not been generally available to the public in the US since 1934 and of which no new items have been available since 1986) from the US? The purchase price of such a firearm in the US normally starts at five figures per gun. Compare and contrast that with the ability to manufacture an AK-pattern rifle themselves for a pittance. They are not difficult to build, they’re reliable as can be, and they require only the ability to point and pull the trigger.
Yes, there are probably some FFL licensees who are “unscrupulous”, however what the ATF director said is disingenuous: “2 percent or 3 percent, perhaps, that aren’t compliant with the rules and the regulations” includes those who have minor paperwork “violations” such as when a buyer fills out his 4473 form, he answers a yes/no question with a “Y” as opposed to the full word “yes”. ATF has claimed that the “Y” could mean something other than “yes” and is therefore non-compliant with their rules and regulations. Somehow, I’m far less concerned with the dealer who misses a “Y” in place of a “yes”.
In addition, the fact that the “dangerous psychotic people”, already prohibited from lawful purchase of firearms were nonetheless able to obtain them is simply because their psychiatric records were not made available at the time of the NICS check.
In addition, on the topic of Columbine and Va Tech, in neither case was an automatic firearm used. The gunman at Va Tech had a Walther P-22 and a Glock 19. I have fired both and own one of the former myself; both discharge a single round with each squeeze of the trigger, which is what makes them “semi-automatic”, just like the great majority of handguns in this country.
The Columbine killers similarly had semi-auto handguns and sawed-off shotguns, all of which were illegal for them to possess due to their age and the shotguns additionally illegal due to ATF regulations, not to mention it being a school zone (which meant only that no one there would be able to shoot back to stop them.)
I understand that you respect the opinions of your father, and I, for one, appreciate his service. Please, if he is still living, convey to him my thanks for his service to our country. My own father, rest his soul, was equally anti-gun, however he was equally incorrect in that opinion. The gun is not evil, nor are the people who make them. The evil resides in the person holding the gun when it is used for an evil purpose.
Thanks for your post and a good week to you.
In response to another comment. See in context »bobt,
So, you’re saying that the crime rate is much higher in DC compared to VA because the citizens are legally armed?
I would absolutely disagree.
The poverty rate is more than double in DC compared to VA. Here is a handy link, just follow and mouse over Virginia (ranked 45th in poverty) and then DC (ranked 2nd).
Many rational minds would also agree with me that poverty has a greater causal relationship to violent crime than whether or not the populace is permitted to carry a gun. For instance, this journal article correlates income inequality with crime rates. I challenge you to find any reputable sources that link increased gun ownership with lower crime rates when factors such as income inequality are factored out. Furthermore, countries like Singapore and Japan where gun ownership is forbidden to the public have some of the lowest violent crime rates in the entire world.
I think what you are actually doing in your rebuttal is giving a quick answer to reinforce what you want to believe, which is frankly insulting to all of the innocent human beings who have been made corpses by your beloved weapons of death. The fact that you corrected me on Columbine and VA Tech on the type of gun used to massacre large numbers of civilians is a testament to your emotional detachment from our egregious gun non-control laws.
Jesus would forgive you, but I would ask you to find some shame, Sir.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Considine,
Like andygeiger, I enjoyed your piece. I did not look at it as “pro-gun control” piece, much less a public polity piece, just a “day in the life of a gun show”. I am assuming you read my reply to your piece so you know I have been to a gun show, as a gun owner (at least at the time). With all due respect to techres, gun shows are creepy. You don’t have to seek the “fringe element” out, you positively trip over them. Are there reasonable, pleasant, intelligent gun owners, of course there are, I like to think I was one. Those folks are just not conspicuous at a gun shows. As a first person, first time visit to a gun show piece, it was what it claimed to be and there was nothing wrong with that.
From a public policy perspective, it is an easy trap to fall into to assess issues like gun ownership based on who is “creepy” and who is “nice”. I happen to think “body building” as a sport is pretty creepy as well but I would never advocate banning body building just because I thought it was creepy. Conversely, there are plenty of heroin dealers out there who as nice and reasonable as can be but I would not advocate legalizing the heroin trade for that reason.
So, meet the “other” gun enthusiasts if you like, they will show you a great time at the firing range (wear ear and eye protection and don’t stand next to anyone firing a large caliber, short barrel weapon, you will feel the compression waves as they hit your face, I did not enjoy it). Maybe skeet shooting, it is a sport of skill and nerves. Just don’t confuse policy with the advocates for policy.
I’m saying that the crime rate is higher in DC /in part/ because the intended victims have no lawful way of effectively defending themselves. There are no simple, easy fixes, and any societal problem of any magnitude at all will require a multifaceted approach to correct it.
However, if you want to make a closer comparison, let’s compare IL and IN:
IN poverty rate:12.7 ranked 25th.
IL poverty rate: 12.3 ranked 29th.
IN violent crime rate (2006)314.8
IL violent crime rate: (2006) 541.6
That’s as close to your criteria as I’m aware of-I don’t know of any studies that have compared firearm ownership and income and crime rate together. I’m willing to stipulate that the answer to the crime problem is not solely in increased gun ownership IF you are willing to admit that it is the human who decides what the gun is going to do AND that even if there was some magical way to remove every gun from our society including those held by the criminals, that crime would not stop, but would continue with other weapons just as has happened in England and Australia. (who both, oddly enough, despite being islands, still have a crime problem and still have a problem with criminals having guns.)
What exactly are the punishments for the commission of a violent crime in either Singapore or Japan? Was not Singapore the country that caused the huge uproar by wanting to beat a criminal with rattan canes a few years ago?
Increased and severe punishments are yet another part of that multifaceted approach. We cannot in America have either cruel or unusual punishments, as per the US Constitution and specifically the Eighth Amendment, however if some of the imposed punishments were more severe and more routine, they would not be unusual… and I think they can be severe enough to truly deter the criminal without being cruel.
If I seemed to be oversimplifying the answer, I apologize. I’m well aware of the point I’ve reinforced several times in this reply, that there are no easy answers.
You used the wording “your beloved weapons of death” as well, and this bears correction. I do not love guns and I certainly do not love the fact that they can be used to kill. I also do not hate guns as you and many others seem to. To me, this makes as much sense as hating computers because someone stole your identity with one. It’s just a tool. It deserves neither hate nor love. What I *do* love is the fact that an 80 year old grandmother or a 20-year-old, wheelchair-bound young woman are given a fighting chance against the 18 year old punk who wants to break into Granny’s house or wants to pull the woman from her wheelchair, rape her and leave her for dead.
I would point out to you as well that you appear to have no argument against firearms in government hands (police and military), yet the 20th century saw millions upon millions of citizens disarmed by their own governments, then subsequently slaughtered by those same governments once there was no possibility of effective resistance.
I corrected your misstatement about the types of firearms misused at those two massacres because I saw a common error repeated: “automatic weapons”. Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center (VPC), who coincidentally, at the time of the Heller ruling was the only FFL dealer in Washington DC, once claimed that it served the purpose of his organization and the movement of which it is a part that the general public sees a firearm and does not know the difference between full-auto and semi-auto, and that this ignorance could be exploited. (Forgive, this is not an exact quote, but the spirit of his statement is maintained)
As for my supposed detachment, I suppose in some ways I am. You see, Mr. Geiger, I obey the laws. I am disgusted by the acts of criminals such as the killers in those two mass-murders. I am angry that punks like one of the Columbine murderers watch such things as a bill to be introduced in the Colorado State Legislature that would ease restrictions on concealed carry and would choose the day that such a bill was to be heard to commit a crime like they did. In effect, he used all of those people he killed at least in part as pawns, sacrificing them to the cause of making a safer work environment for killers, rapists, and thieves. I wish I could have been present at either of those scenes, armed, as all of the adults who were present should have been able to be. The VA Tech killer went around slowly and methodically shooting his victims. There were 32 people and one murderer who died that day, and I have no doubt whatsoever that had he been confronted by any effective resistance, he would simply have died, barely a footnote in history. (reference the Appalachian School of Law story if you don’t believe that this is realistic… but make sure that the copy you read tells the whole story of how the killer was subdued; he was held at gunpoint and then held down to await police arrival, but many media outlets left that part out of the story)
As for finding some shame… Yes, I’ve found plenty of it. It is a shame that this country has allowed the power hungry foxes to guard the henhouse. It is a shame that we have gotten away from our roots. It is a shame that people have to get on the internet and defend basic human rights such as the right to protect one’s own life and property, and those of his/her family from those who would steal or kill. It is a shame that so often, the criminal seems to be allowed to exercise more rights than the victim.