Not to pick unduly on The New York Times, but its editorial of 11 January, referring to “the visceral evidence that the groups have made the country a far more dangerous place,” is beneath the dignity of a great newspaper. What, pray, is visceral evidence, and how does it trump actual evidence that the country is a far less dangerous place? Ditto Bob Herbert, who seems to have phoned in his column of the same day — “A Flood Tide of Murder,” from 1989 . . .

If we were serious about reducing killings, he writes, “we’d have to radically restrict the availability of guns” among other things. Well, we have reduced killings by a great deal, somehow by doing the exact opposite. Again, one doesn’t have make a causal argument, but to say that “no amount of killing  has prompted any remedial action” is simply a calumny. Lots of remedial action has been taken, and it’s worked. It just hasn’t involved radically restricting the availability of guns.

[Dan Baum is a respected author and TTAG commentator. Please visit his website so that we can convince him to cross-post here regularly.]

8 Responses to Baum Blasts Times’ Temerity

  1. Dan, I know you’re a respected author and all, but that use of “calumny” doesn’t seem quite right. Just an observation.

    I’m sure you’ll get lots of support in criticizing the NYT around here. I happen to like what they have to say about guns.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *