(Read NYT’s original article ‘Despair Over Gun Deaths is Not an Option’ here.)
The NY Times can’t get over the latest bit of bad Democrat legislation on firearms being defeated in the Senate which would have torched the Constitution and continues to call for more torching of the Constitution by combining reams of firearms-ignorant comments with quotations from the Violence Prevention Center (VPC) which openly calls for guns to be banned. This on top of a recent incoherent demand to ban rifles on the Obama-esque crap claim that they are “weapons of war” in spite of that they are not weapons of war and that a very small number of them are used annually in murders.
Perhaps the NY Times thought we’d not notice they were citing an advocacy group that wants to ban guns completely?
Another popular citation on the topic of firearms in the media is Everytown, which is bankrolled by the Joyce Foundation as is the VPC. The VPC also wants an “outright ban” of handguns and what they subjectively term “semiautomatic assault weapons.”
Yet again, instead of engaging in any kind of real investigative journalism, we see time and again media taking press releases and “studies” from agenda-driven groups such as these and using them as factual content to the exclusion of any other information sources. Why? Activist media, not objective media.
That’s journalism you can rely on!
Among the VPC’s emotive, manipulative language are references to a supposed “militarized civilian gun industry” and the “vigilante justice meted out by concealed handgun permit holders” in its crusade to attack firearms manufacturers and the right of private citizens to carry concealed handguns for their protection.
Never you mind that concealed handgun permit holders commit far less crime than the average citizen.
The NYT is yet again grossly exaggerating the gun violence issue in the US and continues to hand-wring hoping we’ll go along. The NYT unqualifiedly tells us we have “gun deaths plaguing the nation” when the truth is that homicides with firearms have been consistently dropping for over 20 years and from 1994 to 2010 dropped 49% and are half the rate they were in the early 1980s. Due to this we apparently suffer from “anguish” and “despair” which can only be solved with more bans – not by using emotional management skills and gaining an adequate education on the topic.
On top of this, a common media meme to blow up the numbers of mass shootings (which were traditionally defined as random mass murders of strangers with no political motive) by including acts of terrorism and now an arbitrary redefinition of the FBI’s traditional definition of 4+ murders qualifying as a mass murder to media quoting an activist running a website from his Portland, Oregon apartment who came up with his own loose and expansive definition of the term.
The only thing that hasn’t markedly declined is national TV media hype on guns. Anguish!
What we are told is that we “need” to allow people to sue firearms manufacturers for the abuses a small minority people of engage in using firearms as a “solution” to this non-existent gun violence plague. Of course the intent of that is to inevitable closing of countless firearms and ammunition manufacturers and dealers. What else would happen if tort law was thrown out of the window and anyone who manufactures or sells any item that could be abused and cause great bodily harm was allowed to be sued at whim? Auto manufacturers, knife manufacturers, bleach manufacturers, match companies, etc. could no longer afford to remain in business.
This NYT ediTARDial uses very loose language to make it appear that guns are more readily available without background checks than they are:
Most needed is an expansion of this law so that dealers and others now buying firearms on the Internet and at gun shows are subjected to background checks. The law has barred 2.5 million risky applicants in the last 20 years from buying guns, but it does not apply to 40 percent of total gun sales.
The intent is to create the impression there is a proliferation of illegal firearms being purchased online or in gun shows. False on both counts. Anything purchased from a licensed gun dealer – online or in a gun show – requires a federal NCIC background check.
According to a 1995 US Department of Justice study on the types of weapons and means of acquisition by criminals, less than 1% reported using an “assault-type rifle” in their crimes (p. 6). Another US DOJ study, Firearm Use by Offenders, showed that in 1997, 0.2% of guns used in crimes came from gun shows, 39.2% were bought illegally on the street, and 39.6% were acquired from friends or family (p.1).
Thus closing a supposed “gun show loophole” won’t do a thing, not that it really even exists anyway.
And of course, we need to ban
Battlefield Guns and Ammunition A responsible Congress would restore the assault weapons ban and enact limits on gross ammunition clips that let shooters spray crowds of victims with up to 100-round bursts. High capacity magazines developed for warfare have been used in at least 45 mass shootings since 1984, killing 403 people and wounding 406…
The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was not a ban of the rifle, but a ban of certain aftermarket parts which can be put on them as well as a limit on magazines to 10 rounds. There is no “restoration” of this ban being sought but rather a completely new ban was introduced in 2013 which would have outright banned nearly every rifle in existence including all semiautomatic rifles. The NYT can’t even get this much right.
Magazines are not “clips” and there is no such thing as a “100-round burst.” And that these weapons were used to kill 403 people in 29 years speaks for itself how rare such weapons are used.
And take note that far more Americans have died in Islamist terror attacks or have been murdered by illegal aliens in the last 29 years and the NYT isn’t calling for a ban on Muslim immigration or tighter border control. Indeed, the NYT ediTARDial board has slammed “Trump’s racist lies,” comparing him to Senator McCarthy.
And to add to the smear, the NYT continued,
There are periodic proposals to control or tax ammunition. But the gun lobby showed its clout this year when federal officials backed down from a plan to block the sale of an armor-piercing handgun bullet rated a clear danger to the police. “You spoke, we listened,” officials tweeted after gun zealots complained that their rights were abridged.
More garbage. The issue was over 5.56 caliber green tip ammunition which is NOT a “handgun bullet” but is made for rifles and AR/AK pistols. Referring to it as a handgun bullet gives the impression someone could fire that ammunition out of a 9mm handgun. False. Furthermore, the Fraternal Order of Police which represents over 300,000 police officers has stated that the ammunition in question is not a threat.
The mental illness issue? “Concerned family members” calling for someone to get their firearms purchase rights taken away is the same as the outlawing of the purchase of firearms to people placed on the no-fly list. It’s arbitrary, subjective, and involves the revocation of a Constitutional right without due process.
Insurance for gun owners? Constitutional rights are not give or take based on one’s insurance policy. This is a non-starter.
“Home safety”? Trigger locks were ruled unconstitutional in DC v Heller. You don’t legislate against guns because individuals are irresponsible at home. That’s a pretext and a weak one at that.
Research justified by an invocation of firearm suicides to pad a massively decreasing number of homicides involving firearms?
Cut the shit, NY Times.