icans has, rightly or wrongly, been strictlyrnregulated by the federal governmentrnsince 1934, and many states ban civiliansrnfrom owning such gims. Semi-automaticsrnhave been used by Americans forrnsport and other legitimate purposes sincernthe turn of the century (before the militaryrnstarted using them), and after WorldrnWar II, the federal government sold surplusrnsemi-automatic rifles, carbines, andrnpistols to the public at bargain prices.rnIn the five years that followed the 1989rnStockton, California, schoolyard shootingrnwhich involved the use of a semiautomaticrnversion of the full-automaticrnAK-47, every time I viewed NBC coveragernof “assault weapon” legislahon, therngun shown firing was a full-automatic.rnFor five years, NBC led its viewers to believernthat the machine guns they werernshowing were the guns to be covered byrnthe proposed ban on “semi-automatic assaultrnweapons” (which they weren’t),rnthat opponents of the ban want to huntrnwith machine guns (which they don’t),rnand that sport is the only legitimate usernAmericans have for guns (which it isn’t).rnI’ve seen the same misleading juxtapositionrnof machine-gun demonstrationrnand discussion of semi-automatics onrnCNN. Newsweek’s 1985 cover story,rn”Machine Cun USA,” presented readersrnwith illustrations of several semi-automaticrnversions of full-automatic guns accompaniedrnby caphons citing the muchrnhigher firing rates of the latter. ThisrnNewsweek article and a March 16, 1989,rnCBS special on “assault weapons” alsornmade light of the difference between semi-rnautomatics and full-automatics onrnthe questionable and irrelevant groundsrnthat the latter can be quickly convertedrnto the former. Yet parts that make somernsemi-automatics easily convertible tornmachine guns are themselves classifiedrnand regulated as machine guns, while arnsemi-automatic AK-47 conversion tornfull-automatic involves a time-consumingrnand complicated process. Besides,rnease of conversion as a criteria for regulationrnwould affect all rifles and shotguns,rnbecause they can all be quickly and easilyrnsawed off under legal length.rnNor is “sporting use” the only justificationrnfor gun ownership. There is also thernSecond Amendment. According to thernvery clear paper trail left by the Foundersrn(detailed in numerous law review articles),rnthese concerns have nothing to dornwith sport or, for that matter, with thernNational Guard. The people who putrnthis countr)’ together made it ver’ clearrnthat they wanted an armed citizenry as arncheck against tyranny. Consider the followingrncomment on the Second Amendmentrnby James Madison’s friend TenchrnCoxe:rnAs civil rulers, not having their dutyrnto the people before them, mayrnattempt to tyrannize, and as thernmilitary forces which must be occasionallyrnraised to defend ourrncountry, might pervert their powerrnto the injury of their fellow citizens,rnthe people are confirmed byrnthe next article in their right tornkeep and bear their private armsrn[emphasis added].rnThese same sentiments have been expressedrnby prominent Americans rangingrnfrom Thomas Jefferson to Mr. Liberalrnhimself, Hubert H, Humphrey, butrntoday, in mainstream journalistic circles,rnsuch views are labeled extremist.rnGiven the amount of misinformationrnthe public has received, should we creditrnpolls that show Americans support thernnow-passed ban on “assault weapons” byrnover 70 percent? Do those who supportrnthe ban want to ban machine guns,rnwhich have been regulated by the federalrngovernment since 1934 and have longrnbeen banned in some states, or do theyrnreally want to ban guns that might lookrnlike machine guns but work like the ordinaryrnsemi-automatics many of themrnown? Fven if we take these polls at facernvalue, since when does public opinionrnoverride constitutionally guaranteedrnrights?rnI started following mainstream pressrncoverage of tiic gun-control movementrnway back in the late 1950’s when it resurfacedrnafter a 20-year hiatus. Over thernpast four decades, I have read or viewedrnthousands of commentaries on the gunrnissue —newspaper and magazine stories,rneditorials, columns, political cartoons,rnand comic strips; TV news reports, documentaries,rnsituation comedies, dramas,rnand talk shows. My gun-control clippingrncollection from local newspapers alonernis a foot or so high, and I only started systematicallyrncollecting in 1981. I am extremelyrnfamiliar with the media throughrnwhich most Americans get what they assumernto be the facts about guns and gunrncontrol.rnBut unlike most Americans, I’m in arnposition not only to judge the accuracyrnof the reported “facts,” but to know whatrnisn’t reported about guns and the controversyrnover their control. I have spent thernsix-plus decades of my life around gunsrnand people who know them and usernthem legitimately, and I’ve read aboutrnguns since I was a child. Since the latern1960’s, when I started thinking about doingrnmy sociology doctoral dissertation onrnthe social, cultural, and historical roots ofrnthe interest in firearms in the free industrialrnworld, I’ve read hundreds of scholarlyrnarticles and books relevant to the gunrnissue, including historical investigationsrnof the meaning of the Second Amendment,rnand criminological examinationsrnof the relationship between gun-ownershiprnrates and violent-crime rates. So Irnknow both guns and the scholarly literaturernrelevant to them (a literature tornwhich I have contributed), and I knowrnhow to conduct and evaluate social sciencernresearch. Yet the mainstream mediarncoverage of the gun issue seldom reflectsrnanything that I know about gunsrnfrom firsthand experience or scholarship.rnWith a few notable exceptionsrn(among them Henry Allen of thernWashington Post, Ted Gest of U.S. Newsrn& World Report, and Hugh Downs ofrnABC), mainstream journalists are notrnonly ignorant about guns and the legitimaternuses to which they are put, butrnmake no effort to overcome their ignorance.rnThey accept uncritically thernpremises of gun prohibitionists. Amongrnother achievements, the press has madernmythical “Saturday night specials,” “coprnkiller bullets,” “plastic pistols,” and “semi-rnautomatic assault weapons” householdrnterms—all properly demonized, ofrncourse.rn”Saturday night specials,” you may recall,rnare the easily-concealed, cheap (talkrnabout definitional precision), small-caliberrnhandguns allegedly of absolutely nornuse to anyone but criminals. (The labelrnseems to have been derived from thernracist phrase “nigger town Saturdayrnnight,” as opponents of bans on themrnhave pointed out for over 20 years. Perhapsrnthat’s why liberal Democratic SenatorrnBarbara Boxer of California now callsrnthese weapons “junk guns.”) Whateverrnthese guns are called, reporters are notrninclined to ask penetrating questionsrnabout them. Wliat reason do we have tornbelieve that criminals prefer shoddy,rnlow-powered handguns, and if they do,rnwhy should we encourage them tornchange to good quality, high-poweredrnhandguns? And how can any handgunrnbe so useful to criminals but of no use atrn42/CHRONICLESrnrnrn