From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:14:54 GMT

In article <RIGG.92Oct9100207@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.204737.7648@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>   In article <RIGG.92Oct8111323@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>   >That is my point.  Nearly all of the AR folks that I have met are also
>   >anti-gun folks.  

[...]

>   This is BS.  My concerns about hunting have absolutely nothing to do
>   with guns per se.  My suspicion is that you've been taken in by NRA
>   propaganda.  In order to appeal to wider groups, they seem to be
>   promoting this idea of linkage.
>
>I can quite personally say that you are wrong.

I've seen the NRA ads which bash AR people and make blatant pitches to
anti-AR sentiments.  I lose a lot of respect for the NRA when I see these.

But hasn't the NRA long taken an anti-wildlife position? Didn't the NRA,
for example, resist the transition from lead to steel shot for
waterfowl, long after the damage caused by lead shot was obvious?
Shouldn't they shoulder some of the blame for contributing to the
endangerment of certain larger birds, including the California condor?
What purpose does NRA involvement in hunting and wildlife issues serve,
except to transparently appeal to hunting groups in order to boost
membership rolls?


>  There have been
>numerous attempts to ban .25 and .32 caliber (and 9mm) amunition.  The
>sponsors of the bills claim that their are NO sporting uses for any ammo
>of this caliber.

You lost me here.  If someone is sponsoring a bill to ban a particular
caliber of ammunition on the grounds that such ammo has no hunting
purpose, then they're acknowledging that hunting is a valid purpose
for establishing the legality of ammo.  Why would an AR or an
anti-hunting person do this?

>  Now, I own _one_ gun, a .32 Winchester special,
>lever-action deer rifle.  It is the picture of a "sporting" weapon.
>However, there is a strong effort to make my only rifle useless.
>
>Another example is "sniper rifles".  Some gun grabbers have started to
>work on banning these evil weapons.  They will have no success, of
>course, since nearly all modern deer rifles are excellent "sniper
>rifles". 
>
>   The NRA should stick to 2nd amendment concerns.  The 2nd amendment has
>   nothing to do with hunting.  ...
>
>This is totally true.  However, until the supreme court has the
>"testicular fortitude" to hear a gun case and say that the 2nd
>ammendment most certainly does not mean the national guard, we will
>have to consider such issues.

Are you saying that the NRA is citing hunting as an argument against
gun control legislation, even though there is no constitutional basis
for it?

>
>   >something most AR folks would like.
>
>   Prove it.
>
>I can't.  I mistakenly made generalizations about a group based on a
>small sample.  However, do you honestly believe that over 10% of AR
>folks support the second ammendment?  I don't.

I have no idea what the percent is.  Nor do I find it particularly
relevant.  AR folks participate in AR activities to the extent they
believe in the AR causes, not because they wish to control guns per 
se.  If some favor more gun control than we now have, then that's a
separate issue - unless there are any who favor restrictions on gun
ownership as an indirect means of controlling hunting.  I don't know of
anyone who takes this position, which would be a stupid one to take
for several reasons.

>
>tim

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.