The New York Times and Reality

December 5th, 2015 25 Comments

NY Times

I read Saturday’s New York Times editorial calling for more gun control in the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist attack.

I have become immune to the never-ending display of ignorance about firearms and firearm issues displayed by the media, even all too often by those who profess to be gun owners and supporters of the second amendment. I have even become immune to the flagrant and sometimes risible dishonesty of most of the liberal mainstream media when it comes to firearms issues. But even so, I was a little stunned by two comments in particular.

Consider the following:

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

Putting aside the fact that this was terrorism—radical Islamic terrorism, in fact—and that terrorism has not yet been stopped by any law or any measures in any country, including countries such as France where private firearms ownership is basically impossible, the NY Times is admitting that laws do not and never will prevent or deter evil. The Times then went on immediately to add:

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.

The implication, which I find completely incomprehensible, is that we should at least create the appearance of doing something even if that appearance is admittedly ineffective at best and useless at worst.

My question to the Times is, would we not be better served by taking realistic steps to prevent crime? Forget about radical Islamic terrorism and its stated goal of destroying the United States and Israel; that’s a separate issue that must be dealt with separately on its own, something the current administration is not doing. Think about the staggering toll of common, everyday drug- and gang-related crime in this country. Virtually every study ever conducted has determined the root causes of crime, in particular the inner-city drug- and gang-related crime exemplified by cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, Baltimore, et al, to be caused by readily identifiable and quantifiable factors, notably: poverty; lack of job opportunities; family breakdown; academic failure; peer pressure. Firearms are not mentioned in any of those studies, any more than those causes are ever mentioned by the liberal media or liberal politicians who wish to create the fallacious impression of doing something.

Now consider this statement, which immediately followed the final sentence quoted above:

Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs.

Perhaps it’s a case of bad writing and sloppy syntax, but the implication there is that guns are being creating specifically with would-be killers in mind. It would equally truthful and valid to say that all wine is made with alcoholics in mind. But that sentence also refers back to an earlier statement in the second paragraph:

The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

In other words, if a politician fails to vote for useless, unenforceable, costly, feel-good legislation that the Times happens to like, he or she is corrupt. It would be equally truthful and valid to say all newspapers are dedicated to undermining the Constitution of the United States.

The New York Times and other media outlets would better serve their readers by not imitating the knee-jerk example of our president and would-be president Hillary Clinton, both of whom immediately called for more gun laws, even before the tragedy in San Bernardino had been brought to a close, especially when even the Times admits those laws would not work.

Share Button
Follow me at:
  1. Anonymous says:

    Mark Levin refers to them as “The New York Slimes”. An appropriate name. They should change their slogan to “All the news that’s fit to invent”.

  2. Anonymous says:

    As we both know this editorial is nothing new from this extremely biased newspaper that is primarily the propaganda mouth piece for the DNC.

    At a minimum they want to disarm everyone but their friends in the Democratic party power structure. At the worst they want to disarm everyone so they can usher in their Marxist Progressive Paradise (the more they foam at the mouth the more convinced I’m inclined to believe it is really the latter). Gee will they want to then in-prison or execute anyone who doesn’t get with their wonderful Utopia (distopia) vision…hard not to think that is the case.

    Their pseudo-arguments are insane and foolish. The issue is whether they will be able to increase their numbers to get their way. The war is being fought with the younger and coming of age generation and since they seem to control the mass media, entertainment and educational institutions we need to be very concerned. I think I will donate some money to the NRA (already a life member for about 20 years) and contribute to the evil gun lobby buy spending some money on magazines, ammo, etc. for Christmas.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Howdy JP,

    So do you have any sense of how support or opposition to these kinds of measures that the “Pravda” of the DNC (aka the NY Times) puts out are or are not supported? Maybe you have some sources you can cite.

    For example, I’m inclined to suspect that Blue counties are more likely to support this whilst Red counties are more likely to oppose it. I find that to even be true in Red states like Idaho where I reside, but since their representation in the ID legislature is small since the only counties out of 44 that are increasingly blue are just a small number so they don’t have to power to achieve their goal. Or in other words, heavily urban areas and states where the urban population is so large so as to far outnumber the rural areas are the ones likely to celebrate and support this nonsense.

    BTW, I’m curious. Isn’t Kern County relatively red still except maybe Bakersfield? A quick look at the Wikipedia entry for the County seems to bear that out. I grew up in Orange County in the 60’s-early 80’s and lived in Bob “B-1” Dornan’s district in the early 80’s and then lived in Kern in the mid to late 80’s (Tehachapi). Last I heard OC went Blue in the 90’s.

    I have met a few liberals that are for socialism, gender confusion and all the rest who are against this NY Times 2nd amendment rights nullification, but like Republicans’s who believe in Global warming and gay marriage there just doesn’t seem to be many of liberals (Dems) who are opposed to the NY Times/DNC agenda. There is even a few Blue are R’s who support gun restrictions.

    It also seems most D’s in congress who oppose the banners are the few who are supported in more rural counties rather than the urban ones.

    The division seems to be mostly rural (R) vs urban (D)…it will come down to who has political power.


  4. Anonymous says:

    I don’t believe for one second that the NY Times or the DNC really cares about deaths anyways. They are just exploiting this for their own goals of disarmament of anyone but those who they deem worthy to have guns (a few connected pals, law enforcement and the military, etc). The really sad thing is this group is also exploiting the people they claim to care about (poor, minorities, etc). The question is, if they keep throwing this crap at the wall will it eventually stick long enough to get their dream of criminalizing all gun ownership or at least the vast majority of it (I guess muskets and single shot shotguns as per Joe Biden are ok).

  5. Anonymous says:

    An excellent bit of logic, certainly well-thought-out. It was and will remain a very good read.

  6. Anonymous says:

    San Bernardino, Paris, le Mali, la Tunisie, hier le métro de Londres, et beaucoup d’autres !!! Ca sera qui après ? Les fous sont vraiment partout !!!

  7. Anonymous says:

    Terrorists use car bombs to kill people, so we should outlaw cars. Cars kill more people every year than guns do, so we should outlaw cars. If the industrial revolution had happened before the American Revolution, the founding fathers would probably have included unrestricted car ownership in the Bill of Rights, and the above examples would be receiving the same illogical and hysterical press that firearms have been receiving lately. After all, cars are used as weapons, as getaway vehicles, in “drive-by’s”, for smuggling, and all other sorts of criminal activities. Never mind that millions of car owners use their cars for getting to work, going to the store for groceries, traveling to see relatives, going to the hospital to have a baby or after a heart attack, or for vacationing, sightseeing or just plain fun, lets just get rid of them, right?
    That is the kind of logic at work here. Just something to think about.


  8. Anonymous says:

    Strict gun laws failed to stop the mass shooting in California.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Greetings, JP

    What makes me want to bang my head against a wall is the complete inability of gun-control advocates to accept the simple fact that no amount of rules or regulations is going to stop someone determined to get a firearm. They’re already living outside the lines; why would they care about rules?

    It’s similar to the arguments about illegals and drivers licenses. So many liberals (I call them moonbats) say that if we extend the drivers license to an illegal they’ll want to be legal and get insurance and do all the things we citizens are compelled to do, well, because its the right thing to do. Are you kidding me? Why would they want to do something that’s going to be a financial burden when they’re not doing so now and the local authorities are letting them get away with it?

    No, this is about disarming us, the average citizen, who colors within the lines and who do all that is expected of us, i.e. pay taxes, put our kids in school, not kick the dog, etc. The only thing that stands between us and a complete hijacking of our government is an armed populace. If Black Friday was any indication, firearms ownership isn’t in any way diminishing.

    I have an awful feeling that something else is about to happen – don’t know what or when but it will be a game changer and not in a good way.

  10. Anonymous says:


    John Oceguera, a former state assembly speaker, dropped his lifetime membership because of the NRA’s opposition to gun control.


    Assault-style rifles are NOT for hunting game. They are used to hunt people.

    • Anonymous says:

      ‘Assault’ style rifles, commonly called ‘Modern Sporting Rifles’ outside the left wing media, are actually used all the time to hunt wild game. These rifles are the most often purchased rifles in the United States. It was estimated that last year in 2014 here in Wisconsin that 600k hunters hit the woods to hunt deer, and that 25% of them carried a modern sporting rifle – that is a considerable number considering the many different types of guns available to choose from to use to hunt.

      I would also like to point out that with 600k hunters in the woods in 2012, 2013, and 2014 over a nine day period, there was not one fatality. In 2015 there was three fatalities reported (two were self inflicted, and one was an accidental discharge by a second person climbing into their tree stand but none involved a modern sporting rifle). All those law abiding people with guns and hardly any issues at all. Doesn’t sound like guns are a problem. When you have crazy mass shooters out there it still is not a gun problem, but rather a ‘people problem’.

      I am an avid hunter, and while I do not own or plan to own an AR style sporting rifle, I know several people who do, and see them displayed often in the outdoor magazines being used to hunt with.

      TD Bauer

    • Anonymous says:

      A group membership of a politician should always be viewed with suspicion. It is simply the nature of politicians to almost always have a price on their “loyalty”.
      Anyone who does this, is indicating they never really agreed with the group policies, but is simply working for personal political leverage. The NRA didn’t change anything they stand for, so the change is entirely due to the politician. The elder Bush did the same thing around ’89. He paid a price for that bit of stupidity. It is a hallmark of the socialists, to have no functional memory of history. That’s why they continue to make the same political mistakes over and over and over…

  11. Anonymous says:

    The NRA, in the 1980’s, was all about teaching responsibility and gun safety.
    It was centered around families.

    Once a good and positive organization, the NRA has been destroyed by money, politics, and power.

    • Anonymous says:

      I am an NRA member, and proudly so. Things for the NRA did change in the late 80s and early 90s. That is when gun control measures were being discussed and enacted upon in a much larger capacity than they had ever been before. The NRA stood up and tackled those issues head on, defending American’s rights and standing up for our 2nd Amendment. As the attacks on the 2nd Amendment intensified, so to did the NRA rise to meet the challenge.

      With that said, I would like to point out that the NRA is still very much about teaching responsible gun safety, and they know it starts in the home. Much of what the NRA does is lost to most people, as all they hear in the news is what the media wants to report, and most of what is reported is painted in a negative light.

      Here is a link to a page that shows all the different training/education courses that the NRA maintains. NRA instructors must become certified to teach these courses, and the training is top notch. I know, because I have taken several courses over the years and at one time instructed.

      One course that the NRA promotes and teaches is called “REFUSE TO BE A VICTIM”. It is not a gun training course, but rather it focuses on the average person’s day to day life at home, at work, out running errands, etc… it teaches lifestyle practices and mindset thinking to make you and your family less likely to be in a situation where you are in danger.

      Check out REFUSE TO BE VICTIM here:

      My point is that if you take some time to look at the NRA beyond what you see and hear in the media, you will find a grass roots organization that is very much community and family oriented around personal safety, gun safety, the joys of hunting and competitive marksmanship, and protecting ALL of our rights as Americans by standing up for and protecting the one single Constitutional Right that protects them all: The 2nd Amendment.

      TD Bauer

    • Anonymous says:

      By the early 90’s, the NRA was forced to recognize that if they didn’t start paying attention to the ant-gun politics of the Progressives/Democrats, there wouldn’t be any civilian gun ownership to concern themselves with. That is why they created the ILA/NRA group.

      The core of the NRA is still involved in the areas you mention, just as strongly as they have always been.

      Of course, there was, and still is, a portion of the NRA that can’t see that bit of reality. There are always those who will attempt to appease tyrants and their bully boys, either from denying plain facts as they try to live in a bubble of fantasy, or from cowardice.

      A portion of the first group are those who don’t think there are evil people in the world, and that good and bad are simply relative terms, and always dependent on the situation. These people are telling the world that they have no moral values, because there are no rules that define them.

      There are some other interest groups involved in the NRA. Where do you see yourself fitting in?

  12. Anonymous says:

    The National review The New York Times embarrasses its self with their front page gun editorial.

  13. Anonymous says:

    I admit the outcry I hear from my pro-gun/pro-rights acquaintances after every call for gun control scares me a bit. If comments are anything to go by, some of them shouldn’t be allowed to handle a butter knife, let alone a loaded weapon. I am certain some of them are, at this moment, hunkered down in their basements with their arsenals, canned goods, and their children ready to shoot at anything that moves. I fear for their neighbors, the mailman, and Christmas carolers.

    With that said, I was raised around guns and I have no issue with them. I even feel passionate about some myself. I’d give my eye-teeth, and the eye-teeth of some other people I know, to get my hands on the Luger my father brought home from Germany, for example (it was sold without permission by a relative who shall remain nameless, yet forever on my list). I covet my brother-in-law’s Walther P38. I have been enticed into getting my FOID card by an offer to try out a friend’s WWII era weapons.

    My father, a Kentucky farm boy, and retired military, always had guns and routinely allowed us to shoot them. It would appall people today, but my father never locked up his guns, they were never loaded, but they were in plain sight and we knew exactly where the ammunition was kept. He told us that we were never to point a weapon at anyone, even in jest, and we were never, ever to touch the guns without his permission. And we didn’t. Ever. But then my father had something more powerful than a lock, without raising a hand or his voice to us he commanded our respect. The worst punishment we could receive was the knowledge we had disappointed that man.

    I know that gun control is an age-old issue/question. But it’s rarely been on my radar screen until the last few years, I guess because I was not buying guns and I did not feel the need to own one. Now it is everyday conversation. I think of the easy access to guns we had growing up, and it did not entice us to commit evil acts. But along with gun safety, my father (my parents) also taught us that no amount of anger or upset we felt or any belief we endorsed entitled us to take a human life. (The sanctity of life was also taught in our church. Imagine.)

    Every time there is a mass shooting there are cries for gun-control, but guns are not the problem. It really doesn’t matter how many guns we have or don’t have, it is not going to change the issue we have now, which is a world with an increasing lack of respect for human dignity or human life. We are faced with domestic enemies that inexplicably feel the need to take their pain and anger out by destroying the lives of strangers, and terrorists that feel they are ordained by their god to judge and execute anyone they deem unworthy, and believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife for such evil. Our enemies glory in killing for the sake of it. Gun control is not going to fix that.

    I appreciate the rational commentary (sometimes hard to find) as I try to educate myself on both sides of this argument. I do understand why people feel the need to arm themselves, and can’t argue with that.

    And I will call before I go caroling.


  14. Anonymous says:

    Several congress people from Michigan sent a letter to the White House about the armored personnel carries.

  15. Anonymous says:

    The National review

    The gun control laws in Connecticut and California are the new prohibition.

  16. Anonymous says:

    When and where I grew up(Southern U. S. A.) almost EVERYONE who had a pickup truck(which was almost everyone!) had a rack on the rear window where they kept a shotgun and/or rifle for all the world to see, and it was considered perfectly normal, respectable, and functional! I suppose(sigh) those days are gone forever(until maybe after the apocalypse…..)….L.B.

Top of Page