The New York Review of Books Continues NYT’s War on Gun Rights

(courtesy nytimes.com)

As we’ve chronicled on these pages, The New York Times has launched a full-on assault on Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. It is nothing less than relentless. In this Sunday’s New York Review of Books – right? – the Editorial Board wants you to know that Despair Over Gun Deaths Is Not an Option. More specifically, they offer a recap of all the unconstitutional laws they’d like to see enacted. It’s a veritable hit parade of civilian disarmament, offered and corrected for you here . . .

After months of grief and depression, parents who lost children in the 2012 schoolhouse gun slaughter in Newtown, Conn., turned to the courts last year for a modicum of justice and only then discovered the full power of gun manufacturers: The industry marketing the weapons that killed 20 children and six adults at the school enjoys an extraordinary immunity from civil damage suits — a customized shield from Congress that the makers of autos, drugs and other American industries are not given.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act provides the exact same protection afforded the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Neither the firearms industry nor the drug industry may be sued for the unlawful use of their products. As wikipedia.org informs us . . .

[Firearms] manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products are held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

The Times wants to destroy the firearms industry by making them financially responsible for the illegal use of their legal, legally sold product.

The Brady Law 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.

Te 40 percent stat re: firearms sales through the Internet (which require a federal background check) and gun shows has been debunked again and again. Again, The Department of Justice performed the only comprehensive study of where criminals get their guns (updated in 2002). Here’s the chart:

(courtesy bjs.gov)

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, according to the Violence Policy Center, a public safety research group.

The Violence Policy Center is hardly a suitable source for objective information about firearms-related homicides. The VPC is a gun control organization run by Josh Sugarmann, the man who inspired the term “assault weapons” to describe the country’s most popular, modern rifles. The same man who was the communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.

Aside from that, The New York Times itself tallied-up mass shootings in an article entitled How Many Mass Shootings Are There, Really? ” Emphasis added.

At Mother Jones, where I work as an editor, we have compiled an in-depth, open-source database covering more than three decades of public mass shootings. By our measure, there have been four “mass shootings” this year, including the one in San Bernardino . . .

What explains the vastly different count? The answer is that there is no official definition for “mass shooting.” Almost all of the gun crimes behind the much larger statistic are less lethal and bear little relevance to the type of public mass murder we have just witnessed again. Including them in the same breath suggests that a 1 a.m. gang fight in a Sacramento restaurant, in which two were killed and two injured, is the same kind of event as a deranged man walking into a community college classroom and massacring nine and injuring nine others. Or that a late-night shooting on a street in Savannah, Ga., yesterday that injured three and killed one is in the same category as the madness that just played out in Southern California.

Kinda puts things in a different perspective, no? Not the one required, obviously.

The Times is demonizing standard capacity magazines (not “clips”) by conflating them with drum magazines, implying that spree killers routinely use “gross ammunition clips.” They don’t. As TTAG explained in 2012, 100-round magazines jam and reduce accuracy They’e also difficult to conceal. Aurora is the only example of a spree killer using a drum magazine. It jammed. Killers can change smaller magazines in a second. (Seung-Hui Cho used two “standard” pistols to kill 32 people at Virginia Tech.)

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.

As TTAG reported earlier this year, the “armor-piercing” ammunition facing a federal ban did not qualify under the ATF’s own definition of armor-piercing. The fact that federal officials Tweeted their responsiveness to law-abiding gun owners (not “zealots”) is a feature not a bug. In fact, the ATF later claimed the call for a ban was a “publishing error” – something that the Times knows about when it comes to guns, but repeatedly fails to acknowledge.

Mental Illness Services undoubtedly need to be improved for Americans with mental illnesses as a public health issue, but recalcitrant Republicans are invoking this to duck gun safety measures. They should be the first to embrace a practical law pioneered last year in California that allows concerned family members to alert a judge to issue a gun restraining order on a potentially violent individual.

Where’s the proof that Republicans use mental health to “duck” gun control laws? In any case, they should be the last to embrace California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order, which mandates the confiscation of gun owners’ firearms – and “writings, documents, blueprints, drawings, photographs, computer printouts, microfilms, X-rays, files, diagrams, ledgers, books, tapes, audio and video recordings, films, and papers of any type or description”- without due process.

Insurance and Smart Guns Anyone who opposes limits on gun ownership is obliged to come up with practical steps to keep the public safe. Why not require a gun owner to have liability insurance, as is required for owning a car? Where is the industry, so clever in marketing war weapons, when it comes to advancing safer “smart gun” technology?

I didn’t know that gun owners were obliged to appease the Times’ editorial board’s desire to disarm the public by offering alternatives to gun control. If so, how about locking-up anyone who commits a firearms-related crime, rather than releasing them as part of “revolving door” justice? A strategy that Republicans – and the NRA – have been promoting for decades.

As for firearms misuse insurance, Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. Should we force Americans to carry insurance on their computers, proactively protecting society against the possibility that the New York Times (for example) will abuse their First Amendment right to government protected speech? Re: “smart gun” technology: the not-for-profit boffins in California are working on it. Re: “war weapons”: oy.

Home Safety The home is an even riskier place than the venues attacked by mass shooters. Gun safety studies have found that a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a family homicide, suicide or accident than to be used in self-defense. More than 1.5 million children under the age of 18 live in homes with loaded, unsecured guns, leaving them 16 times more likely to be killed than in safer homes, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a research group. It is hard to imagine how any politician who kisses babies on the campaign trail can fail to demand mandates and penalties to keep guns unloaded and locked up at home.

Another awesome citation, in the sense that the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence is also deeply committed to promoting gun control legislation. As for the stats themselves, they reflect the Law Center’s usual concoction of contextless, cherry-picked data. Besides, the Times‘ argument is irrelevant. If Americans want to live in a home with an unsecured gun – or chainsaw, household chemical or sharp knife – that is their right. And it’s [not] hard to imagine a [New York] political kissing babies who passes laws disarming their parents against criminals, terrorist and crazies. Just sayin’ . . .

State Laws Gun safety laws work in states where they are applied, even if other states are lax. Those with weak gun laws and high rates of gun ownership suffer the highest gun death rates, according to research. Alaska, where 60 percent of households have guns, had 19.5 gun deaths per 100,000 in 2013. The rate was 2.7 in Hawaii where 9.7 percent of households have arms.

The lethal “iron pipeline” of traffic in guns from states with weak laws to those with stronger laws should be stopped by federal law. Researchers found that 90 percent of guns used in crimes were supplied by just 5 percent of gun shops specializing in such underworld traffic — a lethal flaw crying out for not just government but industry controls.

And those states with the most automobiles suffer the most automobile accidents. As for the “iron pipeline” (a riff on the “iron river” of guns applied to firearms flowing from the U.S. to Mexico, a term abandoned after ATF Operation Fast and Furious channeled some 2000 guns to Mexican drug thugs), it’s already a federal crime for a prohibited person to own a gun illegally, or for anyone to sell a gun to a prohibited person, regardless of where they bought it or where they sell it.

No federally licensed firearm dealer “specializes in underworld traffic.” Any gun dealer who knowingly sells guns to a member of the “underworld” is committing a federal crime. The fact that a large number of guns used in crimes can be traced to a small percentage of gun stores simply means that the gun stores operate in an area where guns are used in crimes. As the chart above indicates, 80 percent of guns used in crimes come from illegal “straw” purchases or were stolen from lawful owners.

There’s another bit about the feds funding anti-gun agitprop “gun death research” but my work here is done. Suffice it to say, the Times has nothing new to say about their support for any and all gun control, regardless of its effectiveness or complete lack thereof. I have a feeling that this particular polemic is simply the Review of Books’ editors’ mandatory sop to Times‘ publisher A.M. Rosenthal’s desire to disarm Americans. Except, of course, himself.

comments

  1. avatar mike oregon says:

    Two things come to mind.
    1. Paris, every gun control law ever dreamed of didn’t do anything other than provide plenty of disarmed victims.
    2. Cody Wilson, with his work as a starting point and what others have done, nobody could possibly believe that the genie is going back into the bottle.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Regarding Cody & 3D printing – this is especially true if what you want is a functional firearm and NOT some plastic toy that will shoot once (maybe) but will get through a metal detector.

      The AR-15 lowers are interesting, as was the Liberator, but the new revolver has some serious potential. The trick is, make it a real gun – slip some metal tubing in the firing chamber and the barrel so the damn thing doesn’t split apart when you fire it. With that small addition 3D guns would make a lot more sense.

  2. avatar CRF says:

    The NYT is so dull, you won’t ever have to worry about getting a paper cut.

  3. avatar Kyle says:

    They lie about the 40% statistic, they lied about the claim that a gun is more likely to be used to kill someone in the home than in self-defense, which is only if one’s definition of using a gun in self-defense is shooting the assailant, when most defensive gun uses involve no one getting shot, and as for insurance, that is at most a state government requirement, not a federal government requirement. In addition, it is a state government requirement only if the vehicle is being operated on public grounds, not on private grounds or at least kept in the home.

    As for the claim about gun deaths, states with higher levels of gun control tend to have fewer gun deaths, not fewer gun murders. There is no relation between gun control and gun murder. Some states with high levels of gun control have high levels of gun murder, some have lower levels of gun murder, and same with states with low levels of gun control. The comparison is not that states with high gun control have fewer gun deaths, but rather that states with populations not as friendly or amenable to gun rights have fewer guns, and thus fewer accidental deaths and suicides by gun, and justifiable homicides resulting from said guns, while at the same time also supporting more gun control.

    Also note how they have no problem citing statistics from organizations devoted to gun control, but would never trust statistics from organizations devoted to gun rights, like the NRA.

    1. avatar Seth says:

      I actually did a couple regression analysis, using Wikipedia numbers:

      1) comparing “gun ownership” vs. “gun murder rate” – as gun ownership went down, gun murder rate went up (slightly)

      2) comparing “gun ownership” vs. “murder rate” – again, as gun ownership went down, murder rate went up.

      The numbers speak for themselves.

      I can send these excel docs to anybody interested. Or you can prove it to yourself, just wiki “gun violence in the U.S. by state”

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        I already did that work for you. You’re welcome.

        Florida is not included because it does not appear in Table 20 of the FBI’s UCR Data Tables.
        Alabama is not included due to limited homicide and supplemental weapons data.

        Alaska: 12 total for 1.63 per 100K || Ownership rate: 61.7%
        Arizona: 184 total for 2.78 per 100K || Ownership rate: 32.3%
        Arkansas: 110 total for 3.72 per 100K || Ownership rate: 57.9%
        California: 1,224 total for 3.19 per 100K || Ownership rate: 20.1%
        Colorado: 88 total for 1.67 per 100K || Ownership rate: 34.3%
        Connecticut: 60 total for 1.67 per 100K || Ownership rate: 16.6%
        Delaware: 33 total for 3.56 per 100K || Ownership rate: 5.2%
        D.C.: 81 total for 12.53 per 100K || Ownership rate: 25.9%
        Georgia: 411 total for 4.11 per 100K || Ownership rate: 31.6%
        Hawai’i: 6 total for 0.43 per 100K || Ownership rate: 45.1%
        Idaho: 15 total for 0.93 per 100K || Ownership rate: 56.9%
        Illinois: 364 total for 2.83 per 100K || Ownership rate: 26.2%
        Indiana: 238 total for 3.62 per 100K || Ownership rate: 33.8%
        Iowa: 18 total for 0.58 per 100K || Ownership rate: 33.8%
        Kansas: 78 total for 2.7 per 100K || Ownership rate: 32.2%
        Kentucky: 111 total for 2.53 per 100K || Ownership rate: 42.4%
        Louisiana: 356 total for 7.7 per 100K || Ownership rate: 44.5%
        Maine: 12 total for 0.9 per 100K || Ownership rate: 22.6%
        Maryland: 268 total for 4.52 per 100K || Ownership rate: 20.7%
        Massachusetts: 78 total for 1.17 per 100K || Ownership rate: 22.6%
        Michigan: 440 total for 4.44 per 100K || Ownership rate: 28.8%
        Minnesota: 60 total for 1.11 per 100K || Ownership rate: 36.7%
        Mississippi: 110 total for 3.68 per 100K || Ownership rate: 42.8%
        Missouri: 273 total for 4.52 per 100K || Ownership rate: 27.1%
        Montana: 9 total for 0.89 per 100K || Ownership rate: 52.3%
        Nebraska: 39 total for 2.09 per 100K || Ownership rate: 19.8%
        Nevada: 87 total for 3.12 per 100K || Ownership rate: 37.5%
        New Hampshire: 5 total for 0.38 per 100K || Ownership rate: 14.4%
        New Jersey: 291 total for 3.27 per 100K || Ownership rate: 11.3%
        New Mexico: 59 total for 2.83 per 100K || Ownership rate: 49.9%
        New York: 362 total for 1.84 per 100K || Ownership rate: 10.3%
        North Carolina: 315 total for 3.2 per 100K || Ownership rate: 28.7%
        North Dakota: 4 total for 0.55 per 100K || Ownership rate: 47.9%
        Ohio: 309 total for 2.67 per 100K || Ownership rate: 19.6%
        Oklahoma: 127 total for 3.3 per 100K || Ownership rate: 31.2%
        Oregon: 43 total for 1.09 per 100K || Ownership rate: 26.6%
        Pennsylvania: 440 total for 3.44 100K || Ownership rate: 27.1%
        Rhode Island: 18 total for 1.71 per 100K || Ownership rate: 14.4%
        South Carolina: 224 total for 4.69 per 100K || Ownership rate: 44.4%
        South Dakota: 3 total for 0.36 per 100K || Ownership rate: 35.0%
        Tennessee: 223 total for 3.43 per 100K || Ownership rate: 39.4%
        Texas: 760 total for 2.87 per 100K || Ownership rate: 35.7%
        Utah: 31 total for 1.07 per 100K || Ownership rate: 31.9%
        Vermont: 5 total for 0.8 per 100K || Ownership rate: 28.8%
        Virginia: 225 total for 2.72 per 100K || Ownership rate: 29.3%
        Washington: 86 total for 1.23 per 100K || Ownership rate: 27.7%
        West Virginia: 30 total for 1.62 per 100K || Ownership rate: 54.2%
        Wisconsin: 103 total for 1.80 per 100K || Ownership rate: 34.7%
        Wyoming: 9 total for 1.54 per 100K || Ownership rate: 53.8%

        Most dangerous states, homicides committed with firearms

        Top 10

        1. Washington, D.C. – 12.53 per 100K || Ownership rate: 25.9%
        2. Louisiana – 7.7 per 100K || Ownership rate: 44.5%
        3. South Carolina – 4.69 per 100K || Ownership rate: 44.4%
        4. Maryland – 4.52 per 100K || Ownership rate: 20.7%
        5. Missouri – 4.52 per 100K || Ownership rate: 27.1%
        6. Michigan – 4.44 per 100K || Ownership rate: 28.8%
        7. Georgia – 4.11 per 100K || Ownership rate: 31.6%
        8. Arkansas – 3.72 per 100K || Ownership rate: 57.9%
        9. Mississippi – 3.68 per 100K || Ownership rate: 42.8%
        10. Indiana – 3.62 per 100K || Ownership rate: 33.8%

        avg. 5.35 per 100K @ 35.75%

        11. Delaware: 3.56 per 100K || Ownership rate: 5.2%
        12. Pennsylvania: 3.44 100K || Ownership rate: 27.1%
        13. Tennessee: 3.43 per 100K || Ownership rate: 39.4%
        14. Oklahoma: 3.3 per 100K || Ownership rate: 31.2%
        15. New Jersey: 3.27 per 100K || Ownership rate: 11.3%
        16. North Carolina: 3.2 per 100K || Ownership rate: 28.7%
        17. California: 3.19 per 100K || Ownership rate: 20.1%
        18. Nevada: 3.12 per 100K || Ownership rate: 37.5%
        19. Texas: 2.87 per 100K || Ownership rate: 35.7%
        20. Illinois: 2.83 per 100K || Ownership rate: 26.2%
        21. New Mexico: 2.83 per 100K || Ownership rate: 49.9%
        22. Arizona: 2.78 per 100K || Ownership rate: 32.3%
        23. Virginia: 2.72 per 100K || Ownership rate: 29.3%
        24. Kansas: 2.7 per 100K || Ownership rate: 32.2%

        avg. 3.09 per 100K @ 29.01%

        Bottom 25

        25. Ohio: 2.67 per 100K || Ownership rate: 19.6%
        26. Kentucky: 2.53 per 100K || Ownership rate: 42.4%
        27. Nebraska: 2.09 per 100K || Ownership rate: 19.8%
        28. New York: 1.84 per 100K || Ownership rate: 10.3%
        29. Wisconsin: 1.80 per 100K || Ownership rate: 34.7%
        30. Rhode Island: 1.71 per 100K || Ownership rate: 14.4%
        31. Connecticut: 1.67 per 100K || Ownership rate: 16.6%
        32. Colorado: 1.67 per 100K || Ownership rate: 34.3%
        33. Alaska: 1.63 per 100K || Ownership rate: 61.7%
        34. West Virginia: 1.62 per 100K || Ownership rate: 54.2%
        35. Wyoming: 1.54 per 100K || Ownership rate: 53.8%
        36. Washington: 1.23 per 100K || Ownership rate: 27.7%
        37. Massachusetts: 1.17 per 100K || Ownership rate: 22.6%
        38. Minnesota: 1.11 per 100K || Ownership rate: 36.7%
        39. Oregon: 1.09 per 100K || Ownership rate: 26.6%

        avg. 1.69 per 100K @ 31.69%

        Bottom 10

        40. Utah – 1.07 per 100K || Ownership rate: 31.9%
        41. Idaho – 0.93 per 100K || Ownership rate: 56.9%
        42. Maine – 0.9 per 100K || Ownership rate: 22.6%
        43. Montana – 0.89 per 100K || Ownership rate: 52.3%
        44. Vermont – 0.8 per 100K || Ownership rate: 28.8%
        45. Iowa – 0.58 per 100K || Ownership rate: 33.8%
        46. North Dakota – 0.55 per 100K || Ownership rate: 47.9%
        47. Hawai’i – 0.43 per 100K || Ownership rate: 45.1%
        48. New Hampshire – 0.38 per 100K || Ownership rate: 14.4%
        49. South Dakota – 0.36 per 100K || Ownership rate: 35.0%

        avg. 0.69 per 100K @ 36.89%

        National average: 2.54 per 100K @ 32.8%

        https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/5tabledatadecpdf/table_5_crime_in_the_united_states_by_state_2013.xls

        https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-20/table_20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2013.xls

        http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2015/06/09/injuryprev-2015-041586.full.pdf?keytype=ref&ijkey=doj6vx0laFZMsQ2

        1. avatar Watts' Twat says:

          It’s a shame those statistics probably contain figures of “Justifiable Homicide” by police and law-abiding citizens, they SHOULDN’T be counted in “crime stats”, Liberals ALWAYS use those numbers to boost their argument, like everything else they do it’s “intellectually dishonest”.

        2. avatar Kyle says:

          Also look into the data on gun control levels versus gun murder.

        3. avatar Jimbo says:

          Looks like the whitest states have the lowest gun murder rates, regardless of the levels of firearm ownership.

  4. avatar Another Robert says:

    Guess it’s the whim of the moment for the NYT. I remember when they went on an almost identical tear to–get this–get women admitted into the Augusta golf club. Granted, this is a lot more serious business, but it looks like the Times is squandering whatever credibility they have left with this, well, jihad against guns.

  5. avatar Ralph says:

    New York City went full retard when it elected Warren Wilhelm to be its first Comintern-approved mayor. Now it’s doubling down on stupid. And this exercise in creative bullsh1tting was authored by the New York Review of Books? Maybe it should call itself the New York Review by Schmucks.

    1. avatar CRF says:

      Please do not disparage mentally challenged people by comparing them to New York politicians.

  6. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    Hey no offense to RF and Dan, but is the “so and so published this and here is why they are wrong” shtick getting a bit redundant for anyone else?

    More original content, opinion and occasionally launching an offensive would break up the monotony..

    1. avatar pod says:

      It’s not just about the actual content. It’s a data war. Each and every anti-gun piece published by the lamestream media needs to be responded to and debunked. Information like that cannot go unchecked, especially in this day and age.

      Sucks, but the more data we put out there (even if it repeats itself) the better. Google will detect the links to the offending article and bring the response up in the rankings.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      You want 2015 Reader’s Choice Awards votes, RF? I cast my vote for this comment and the concept of going on offense!

      This may also be a golden opportunity for you to post reader-contributed content. Other than spending lots of money and lobbying Congress and other legislators, how do we, The People of the Gun, go on offense against the anti-Constitution, anti-Second Amendment, gun-grabbing fascists? Should get some mileage out of that, IMHO.

    3. avatar Paelorian says:

      It’s not getting old for me. The New York Times is probably the nation’s most influential newspaper, especially among the ruling class. I at least see the frontpage most days. I wouldn’t ever purchase the paper and fund them, to me it would be like purchasing a new issue of the Völkischer Beobachter, but I do get the opportunity to read The New York Times for free regularly and I often take the opportunity to infuriate myself by reading their pro-tyranny propaganda against human rights as domestic enemies of the U.S. Constitution. It’s useful to keep up with what gun control activists are up to and their latest reality-free dishonest talking points, reminding ourselves just how bad they are. I’m hoping we can hold on to a somewhat just rule of law that protects our rights by defending ourselves peacefully through the political process, and even if we eventually fail to preserve our rights through legal, honorable political means we should still give every effort to asserting self-determination and consent of the governed through peaceful means. But I can’t say I don’t sometimes think that in a “fantastical” apocalyptic or “wartorn country” scenario I’d consider these liberty-hating intellectuals to be on the “enemy” side. After all, every day they campaign to seize by illegitimate force our only effective means of defending ourselves from violence. To me, that is violence and real harm they are trying to do to me and all other Americans.

  7. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Anyone who opposes limits on gun ownership is obliged to come up with practical steps to keep the public safe.
    OK. Constitutional Carry.
    Eliminate NFA.
    No Gun Free Zones.
    Control Borders.
    Repeal Drug Laws.
    Quit spying on Tea Party Members and spy on Radical Muzzies.
    Get rid of Public Education.
    Get rid of Common Core.
    Get rid of Section 8 Housing.
    Get rid of Global Warming Economy Destroying Legislation.
    Get rid of ridiculous Labor Laws.
    Get rid of restrictive laws upon Business & Industry.
    Let the screams begin.

    1. avatar Mack Bolan says:

      Lets not forget:

      Repatriate all refugees and illegals.
      Revoke all free trade agreements
      Get the hell out of the UN
      End all entitlement programs

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        I expect Hell is in the U.N. to stay. Better tactic – get the U.S. out of the U.N., and get the U.N. the hell out of the U.S.!

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          I don’t mind the US being in the UN and vice-versa, but I see no reason why the US should financially support that source of worldwide corruption.

      2. avatar Kyle says:

        Free trade is good and essential to a healthy economy. Protectionism leads to a lousy economy. It only works in early stages of economic growth when a nation needs its domestic industries to develop. No one should be forced to only have to buy domestic goods if a foreign manufacturer can do it better. I am all for American-made, but what keeps American companies on their toes to innovate and have good quality is foreign competition.

  8. avatar Not Jimbo says:

    Would I be wrong in stressing the fact that the 40% statistic (regardless of how accurate it is) is a red herring – shifting the focus away from our right to legally buy and sell goods as we see fit?

  9. avatar daveR says:

    How are you sourcing the New York Review of Books? You’re linking to the NYT.

  10. avatar Priest of the center mass says:

    This is what nyt does best, create more landfill material.

  11. avatar Mark N. says:

    The demand that owners be insured is wrong for reasons other than what you argue. In fact, your argument is specious. Simply because we have a right to do something does not mean we are not liable for damages if we do so negligently. For example, we have a right to speak, but if we defame someone, we are subject to suit for damages. Same is true for firearms–if we shoot someone, negligently or intentionally–we can be sued for the injuries inflicted.

    The reason the proposal is wrong is because insurance DOES NOT COVER murders and intentional shootings. It would cover accidents, of which there are thankfully few, and that is it, but homeowners/renters insurance probably covers such claims as it is. Therefore, such a requirement would not begin to address the billions spent by governments (or health insurers) by people shot in gang wars, robberies, muggings, gang fights, domestic violence incidents, etc. All it would, in fact all it could do, is increase the cost of gun ownership–and this is precisely why it is being demanded.

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      The demand that owners be insured is wrong for reasons other than what you argue. In fact, your argument is specious. Simply because we have a right to do something does not mean we are not liable for damages if we do so negligently. For example, we have a right to speak, but if we defame someone, we are subject to suit for damages. Same is true for firearms–if we shoot someone, negligently or intentionally–we can be sued for the injuries inflicted.

      Being liable for damages doesn’t mean that the government has any right to mandate insurance coverage. And arguing against mandatory insurance is not arguing that a right doesn’t have responsibilities.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        You miss my point. Robert argued as follows: “As for firearms misuse insurance, Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. Should we force Americans to carry insurance on their computers, proactively protecting society against the possibility that the New York Times (for example) will abuse their First Amendment right to government protected speech?” This is a specious argument because, as you note, with rights come responsibilities, and, if the exercise of the right creates risk, insurance has often been required, such as requiring liability policies of the use of government facilities for activities protected by the First Amendment. The BETTER argument is, as I have suggested, that insurance does not cover the risk of the intentional misuse of firearms, which is the risk that this demand seeks to reduce. When you hear this demand made, it is usually accomplished by statistics as to the financial toll of murders and mass shootings, the cost of which usually falls on governmental entities, and therefore indirectly on taxpayers. Thus, the better argument is a demonstration that the desired goal will not be met by the imposition of insurance on lawful gun owners, since that insurance will not pay anything in 90% of shootings.

  12. avatar Inquiring Mind says:

    Anyone have an estimate for the number of bullets fired per year in the U.S.?

  13. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    We must always reject their baseless lies and continue this culture war by rebutting their lies with the truth. All the time. Every time.

  14. avatar Kyle says:

    The article also makes the B.S. claim that gun violence is a public health issue. And also that research into it has been stifled. Only the CDC was stifled because they got caught red-handed engaging in biased research to promote the Clinton Administration gun control agenda at the time. But research otherwise has continued aplenty, both by the biased public health folk, and the real experts on the subject, the criminology profession.

  15. avatar Chris says:

    You mean the New York Times Book Review, right? The New York Review of Books is not affiliated with the New York Times. The New York Review was founded in 1963 by Robert B. Silvers and Barbara Epstein.

    1. avatar daveR says:

      Yeah. That confused me too. Title of this post needs to be fixed

  16. avatar Southern Cross says:

    With the media now in an all-or-nothing frontal assault on gun rights, will the fudds finally get off the fence (or out of the closet ) about which side they are on?

  17. avatar barnbwt says:

    So, if the NY Times is under direct orders to go “ape-shit” (their words), that would make this article flying fecal matter (literally-literally). No self-respecting bird-owner would like their cages with this pre-soiled newsprint.

  18. avatar LongPurple says:

    “The Violence Policy Center, a public safety research group”, was enough to give me a spit-take.

    It’s more like “The Violence Policy Center, a fellow gun control/confiscation propaganda mill like us”.

  19. avatar Watts' Twat says:

    “‘Battlefield guns’ and ammunition” well, well, well, what do we have here? Yep, it’s just another term coined by the Marxists/Leninists (Communists/Socialists), today’s Democrats/Progressives ie. Liberals;and Cultural Marxists, the same firearm ignorant masses that gave us the terms “assault rifle” two decades ago and recently “weapons of war”. You KNOW they’re losing when they resort to changing the age-old terms they’ve used to vilify inanimate objects. If you’re an “anti” you’ve got to ratchet up the hysteria like when they blamed the “evil” “flash suppressors”, “bayonet lugs” and those damned “folding stocks” for the deaths of thousands.

    We ARE winning! The anti-2nd Amendment cabal has been weakened beyond belief after the terror attack in San Bernardino, they are weaker than any other time in recent memory BUT remember this, they ARE desperate and THAT’S when they’re the most dangerous. We MUST keep up the pressure and hopefully we will be able to cast the last shovel of dirt upon their collectivist, gun-grabbing graves. God forbid there’s another Muslim terrorist who commits an attack on Americans here in the USA and he gets “made good” by a law-abiding Open or Concealed carrier THAT will spell the end of the “civilian disarmament” bowel movement once and for all. So we must ALL do our parts, maintain “situational awareness” everywhere, if you can, Open or Concealed Carry, do it at ALL times, keep your powder dry and if you must take action don’t accidentally hit a civilian.

  20. avatar Mark N. says:

    There is no point in demonstrating to the NYT the factual “inaccuracy” of their arguments. These are not stupid people, and as professional journalists we have to assume that they are fully capable of fact checking. The truth is that these arguments are always presented as “opinions” because then they do not have to stand behind their “facts.”
    Instead, these attacks must be recognized for what they really are: pure, unadulterated propaganda. As Robert has often quipped, repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. The NYT assumes that its very liberal base will take its opinions as truth, repeating these “truths” to others until a majority believe them unequivocally and without analysis.

  21. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “Despair Over Gun Deaths is Not an Option”

    It seems to me that flailing to enact broad ineffective restrictions is a kind of despair. Like one can’t understand how the world works, step up to doing something effective, or accept the limits of what can be done.

    “The hardest thing about this world is living in it.” Famously said one t v character. Myself, while not a fan of the whackjobs, I’m mostly having a good time.

    1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      Also, “Lighten-up, Francis.”

  22. avatar Fred says:

    Anyone else want to see these “100 shot bursts at a time”? That’s impressive even for a 240/249.

    1. avatar Blacque Jacque Shellacque says:

      100 round burst? They’re probably thinking about an M134 Minigun – like the one I carry around in my back pocket. I was going to make it extra scary by attaching a bayonet lug; I just can’t figure out which barrel to put it on. And I’ve no idea where to put the shoulder thingy that goes up.

  23. avatar Shawn says:

    403 deaths since 1984 is 13 deaths per year over the past 31 years (man that makes me feel old). Are they saying that reducing the number of homicides by 13 is significant progress?

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email