Dear HCN,
As a hunter, I find
opinions like those of Ali Macalady nauseating (HCN,
11/6/00). “Hunters for Gun Control?” I wonder if she’s
not a “plant,” a leftist radical posing as a hunter. If she’s
really a hunter, she should be aware that the gun-grabbers will
never be satisfied with banning handguns and semi-automatic rifles,
or with gun registration. As soon as they succeed in getting one
antigun law passed, they immediately begin demanding even more
legislation restricting the rights of gun owners. They won’t be
satisfied until virtually all guns are outlawed, and they have
admitted as much in candid statements.
They
wanted “reasonable gun control” in Great Britain and Australia, but
now citizens of those countries are lucky to be able to keep a
bolt-action .22 rifle or a single-shot shotgun, and antigunners
would like to ban them, too.
Don’t blame guns for
the Columbine tragedy. There was plenty of evidence that the two
mental cases who committed the crime were in need of serious
investigation. Plus they were apparently the victims of bullying,
which must be halted in the schools. The cult of sports often
almost encourages some obnoxious athletes to feel that they can get
away with almost anything. This will stop when this type of person
is booted off the team, rather than being
placated.
If guns caused crime, states like
Montana would have very high rates of violent crime. But instead,
it has very low rates; Montana’s 1998 murder rate was just over two
per 100,000, compared to the national average of over six per
100,000. And Vermont is the safest state in the nation, according
to a recent survey of key crime statistics; Vermont also has a very
unrestrictive firearms policy: a citizen may carry a gun for any
reason except to commit a crime, with no fees or
registration.
Gun owners and hunters don’t need
more gun control – they need criminal control.
Howard Jubatum
Missoula,
Montana
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline This hunter is for freedom.

