alan
Member
Appeared in 21 July Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, page A-19, you might have seen it.
The piece by former Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D. Ohio), reprinted from The Washington Post is entitled A sane law set to expire. He refered to the sun set of the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, and I suppose that readers can imagine what he had to say.
There was the usual claim about how the results of a "study" in 10 states, done by an organization that he is chairman of, the Consumer Federation of America, in conjunction with the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence discovering wide spread support for reauthorization and or strengthening of the ban. In Pennsylvania, according to Metzenbaum, "80% of union households support renewing the ban and 73 % supported strengthening it".
Do readers know of anyone who was included in this "study" or were any of you included in it? How many people were, and even more interesting, exactly how were the uestions asked phrased? Also, who, other than those who ran this study saw the raw results?
The foregoing are some questions that came to mind, while I read the article this A.M. I'm certain that readers are aware of the senators position on firearms, gun control and what are sometimes described as "assault rifles". Like some others, Metzenbaum never saw anything that could possibly be described as any sort of restriction on firearms, that he didn't fall instantly in love with. While there is no accounting for variations in taste, his predilictions really stood out.
In any event, the following is a copy of my response, in the form of a Letter To The Editor. I doubt very much, that the Post-Gazette will print it, so I'm offering it to readers for their interest and attention. Please read on.
Editor:
Having read the above mentioned commentary, I'm given to recall an old adage that runs as follows. "While figures might not lie, liars figure".
Does anyone at The P-G know any of the people who were allegedly queried in the course of the "study" mentioned? Does anyone know the exact nature of the questions asked? After all, he or she who sets the parameters, the terms, the wording of a discussion, controls the outcome thereof, to a large extent, if not completely. Has anyone other than those who ran this study seen the data?
Speaking personally, I'm a member of The National Rifle Association, matter of fact, a LIFE MEMBER since 1973. I never supported this so-called Assault Weapons Ban, nor do I support it's extension, reauthorization or strengthening. While nowadays retired, at one time or another, I was a member of two labor unions. Once again, I never supported this so-called Assault Weapons Ban, nor do I support it's reauthorization, extension or strengthening.
Needless to say, nobody from the "study" solicited my thoughts on any aspect thereof, nor do I know of anyone who was, nor have I heard of anyone being asked, yet the former senator from Ohio would have us believe that a significant portion of the population of 10 states agrees with a position that he holds. Talk about "political doublespeak", a term that he saw fit to utilize.
If you would like to see the exemplar thereof, take a look at the former senator from Ohio. Take a look at those he travels with too.
Those interested in what is likely an exercise in futility, given the Post-Gazette's well known and long established anti gun position, and their general unwillingness to print pro gun comment, or to print that which rebutts their position, might wish to use my comments as a reference re whatever they might offer.
The piece by former Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D. Ohio), reprinted from The Washington Post is entitled A sane law set to expire. He refered to the sun set of the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, and I suppose that readers can imagine what he had to say.
There was the usual claim about how the results of a "study" in 10 states, done by an organization that he is chairman of, the Consumer Federation of America, in conjunction with the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence discovering wide spread support for reauthorization and or strengthening of the ban. In Pennsylvania, according to Metzenbaum, "80% of union households support renewing the ban and 73 % supported strengthening it".
Do readers know of anyone who was included in this "study" or were any of you included in it? How many people were, and even more interesting, exactly how were the uestions asked phrased? Also, who, other than those who ran this study saw the raw results?
The foregoing are some questions that came to mind, while I read the article this A.M. I'm certain that readers are aware of the senators position on firearms, gun control and what are sometimes described as "assault rifles". Like some others, Metzenbaum never saw anything that could possibly be described as any sort of restriction on firearms, that he didn't fall instantly in love with. While there is no accounting for variations in taste, his predilictions really stood out.
In any event, the following is a copy of my response, in the form of a Letter To The Editor. I doubt very much, that the Post-Gazette will print it, so I'm offering it to readers for their interest and attention. Please read on.
Editor:
Having read the above mentioned commentary, I'm given to recall an old adage that runs as follows. "While figures might not lie, liars figure".
Does anyone at The P-G know any of the people who were allegedly queried in the course of the "study" mentioned? Does anyone know the exact nature of the questions asked? After all, he or she who sets the parameters, the terms, the wording of a discussion, controls the outcome thereof, to a large extent, if not completely. Has anyone other than those who ran this study seen the data?
Speaking personally, I'm a member of The National Rifle Association, matter of fact, a LIFE MEMBER since 1973. I never supported this so-called Assault Weapons Ban, nor do I support it's extension, reauthorization or strengthening. While nowadays retired, at one time or another, I was a member of two labor unions. Once again, I never supported this so-called Assault Weapons Ban, nor do I support it's reauthorization, extension or strengthening.
Needless to say, nobody from the "study" solicited my thoughts on any aspect thereof, nor do I know of anyone who was, nor have I heard of anyone being asked, yet the former senator from Ohio would have us believe that a significant portion of the population of 10 states agrees with a position that he holds. Talk about "political doublespeak", a term that he saw fit to utilize.
If you would like to see the exemplar thereof, take a look at the former senator from Ohio. Take a look at those he travels with too.
Those interested in what is likely an exercise in futility, given the Post-Gazette's well known and long established anti gun position, and their general unwillingness to print pro gun comment, or to print that which rebutts their position, might wish to use my comments as a reference re whatever they might offer.
Last edited:
