Once again, as is so often the case, The New York Times is lying getting it wrong. Their April 11 editorial lambasting the South Carolina legislature for working to pass constitutional carry (Standing Ground Against the N.R.A.) is their usual mishmash of logical fallacies, unsupported assertions and outright falsehoods.
They start with a classic guilt by association fallacy:
Two years after nine churchgoers were shot to death in a horrific gun spree in Charleston, S.C., tone-deaf state lawmakers are considering a measure to allow South Carolina residents to carry guns — openly or concealed — without the need to obtain a state weapons permit.
Before skipping over to a good old ad hominem arrack:
Representative Bill Crosby supports gun rights but felt obliged to warn the House … “all it does is it makes these good ol’ boys who like to have guns strapped to their hips not conceal them.”
The fact that a lunatic racist perpetrated a “gun spree” (i.e. mass shooting) is completely irrelevant to whether or not people should be “allowed” to exercise their natural, fundamental, and inalienable, human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right to carry the self-defense tool of their choice without let or hindrance, and most especially without kowtowing to the unfettered whim of some official. But the Times’ editorial board’s bowels are turning to water “because guns” and they’re hoping that bringing up this mass murder will instill similar fear in others.
Furthermore, classifying all those who prefer to take responsibility for their own self-defense as “good ol’ boys” who like to go strapped, diminishes and marginalizes the many men and women who have very real reasons to believe that they or their loved ones may face the threat of deadly violence. People who have violent ex-partners, have a stalker, live in bad neighborhoods, routinely carry large amounts of cash…any and all of these people have legitimate cause to “have guns strapped to their hips.” But more importantly, as all nine Supreme Court justices agreed in Heller v. DC, the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
This means that you don’t need a reason to carry a weapon, just as you don’t need a reason for why you go to church on Tuesday, you don’t need a reason to pull out a soapbox and start orating in the town square, you don’t need a reason to assemble with a bunch of your friends and express your pleasure or displeasure with what the government is or isn’t doing.
And all that is in just the first two paragraphs! The fourth paragraph is where the editorial board really polishes up the B.S.:
The carnage at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church against African-American worshipers was carried out by a racist gunman who was able to buy his weapon because of shoddy enforcement of gun control laws.
And this is where the outright falsehood comes in; the racist loon shooter arguably was not a prohibited person, and two years after the fact is enough time for the Times editorial board to have figured this out. Said loon was arrested on a misdemeanor drug charge (not a disqualifying factor) which was mistakenly reported initially as a felony, which would have made him a prohibited person.
Finally, we have the unsupported assertion:
Yet, rather than focus on tighter gun safety, lawmakers yielded once more to the National Rifle Association’s agenda to freely arm the public and enrich the gun industry. …
Despite decades of uncritical acceptance, the fact remains, there is no evidence that stricter gun laws improve “gun safety” in the sense the editorial board uses the phrase. Even the CDC has said that it is impossible to say that restrictive gun laws have any effect on criminal gun use. The only law I can think of which might actually improve real gun safety is a requirement for all public-school children to be taught the four rules of gun safety, but somehow, I don’t think that’s what the Gray Lady has in mind.