From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:57:43 GMT


In <1992Apr14.200433.24330@ms.uky.edu> robert i kesten states:

|> [material deleted]
|> And of course, there are gun owners who think only their favorite
|> firearm is worth keeping; everyone else's be damned. A NY Times poll
|> published in the March 12, 1992 edition, A16 has this:
|> [edited for brevity]
|> 	Would you favor or oppose a ban on assault weapons - that is,
|> 	semi automatic military-style rifles that can hold up to
|> 	30 bullets?
|> 	
|> 		General population:		
|> 		79% YES 		
|> 		12% NO		
|> 		 2% DON'T KNOW
|> 				
|> 		Gun Owners:		
|> 		76% YES
|> 		24% NO 		
|> 		 1% DON'T KNOW
|> 		

|Is this the VERBATIM wording of the question and results?  

Yes, it is verbatim. The results are part of bar graph chart.

The bottom of the chart states:

	Based on a syrvey of 1,281 adults nationwide conducted by
	telephone Jan. 22-25.

|Finally, single-issue surveys and actual voting patterns often do not  
|correlate well.   79% of the general population supporting (my semantic  
|objections aside) an "assault" rifle ban does not equate to 79% of the  
|population voting for anti-semiauto rifle candidates.  It is more likely,  
|however, that the 12% opposed to the ban includes a higher percentage who  
|are unified in supporting candidates in agreement with their position.   
|Obviously, there is some speculation here; but I think that actual voter  
|patterns will show that 12% being far more politically efficacious than  
|the 79% in opposition.

My only point is that since most gun ownership is for non-protection
reasons, weapons that are oriented toward militia use are considered
by even gun owners to be non-essential, and hence, a bone to be thrown
to the gun control wolves.

Gun owners are subject to the same anti-militia weapon propaganda
as non-owners; why, I even saw an article from a rural Northwest
state in which a columnist thinks NRA is nutty for supporting the
awful military-style-semi-auto, talking about the how they contribute
to violence in the big cities, but that his readers shouldn't
start worrying until they started going after conventional sporting arms.

I don't know if he just being a pompous asshole for the hell of it,
or if he just wanted to put distance between himself and NRA leadership,
the point is he was willing to screw someone elses guns just because
it was expedient to sacrifice them to satisfy the news media's assertions
on the role of their particular pet peave weapons of the hour.

It never dawns upon these very same people that for years, the gun
controllers claimed to be only after "Saturday Night Specials,"
cheap handguns, handguns, small handguns, non-sporting handguns and
now, they have implemented bans on shotguns and rifles. These
people are so blind, so willing to "go along to get along" they've
lost their ability to think.

Perhaps that would make a great NRA advertisement; put photos of
various editorials proclaiming "handguns only" bans from newspapers,
and then editorials whining about the awful military-semi-auto
after the Stockton, CA incident. The caption would be: 

		Trust Us. Handguns. That's what we always
		wanted. We would never lie to you.