Previous Post
Next Post

By B.

The New York Times never misses an opportunity to tell its readers that guns are bad. How best to do that? By waving a convenient bloody shirt, of course. In other words, taking advantage of a tragedy and heightened emotions to push their agenda. In this case, world famous sprinter, Oscar Pistorius — aka “The Blade Runner” — allegedly shot his super model girlfriend four times, killing her. Bingo! Another tragedy that fits well with the NYT view that guns in the hands of ordinary citizens are bad. So . . .

why not use it to their advantage?  Never mind that the Olympic runner might have had anger management issues and, in a crime of passion, killed his girlfriend with a knife, cricket bat, hammer gun. He murdered his girlfriend.

In a case of comparing apples to oranges, the NYT has chosen to subliminally show its readers what they, the NYT wants them to see. Guns are bad. If they are bad in SA, they must therefore be bad in the USA. So they provide some dubious sources and attempt to show that homicides with guns have dropped in the past decade in SA. Proof positive, therefore, that SA’s Firearms Control Act of 2004 is working.

From the Times’ piece:

Adele Kirsten of Gun-Free South Africa, an organization opposing gun violence, said that whatever the motive, the shooting was avoidable. “The idea that you have a gun to protect your family against intruders, the data doesn’t bear that out,” Ms. Kirsten said. “What it tells us is that having a gun in your home puts you and your family at risk of being shot.”

Homicides involving guns have declined in South Africa in the past decade, Ms. Kirsten said, a development many here attribute to the Firearms Control Act of 2004.

What a credible and unbiased source they have chosen for us sheeple to read.  Yes, Ms. Kirsten, the shooting was avoidable. The murder however, was not. He wanted to kill her and, judging but the four shots, he wanted to make sure she was dead. That’s some deep seated anger there. The kind that transcends the means and manifests itself as pure motive.

He wanted her dead and absent a gun, he would have used something else, such as a knife. If he’d used a blade, would we now be talking about how having a knife in the home increases your family’s chances of being stabbed? Probably not.

The NYT then goes on to cite some unreferenced “facts” to show the joyful effects of the 2004 FCA.

The overall murder rate has dropped by 50 percent since its peak in the late 1990s, and the number of women killed by intimate partners using a gun has also dropped. In 2009, 17 percent of such intimate partner killings were gun-related, down from nearly 31 percent in 1999.

Makes me almost want to move to SA.  Except that I don’t. Because no matter what the Times’ sources may be telling them, the State Department has given South Africa’s major cities its highest rating of ‘critical’ for the rampant crime there.

The Times wants you to believe that gun control will work equally well here, too. Subliminally. So they have to feed their readers a steady diet of anti-gun propaganda thinly disguised as a news stories. They need examples of where gun control works. Only they can’t point to the UK, Europe’s most violent country. That’s old news. But using South Africa to sell civilian disarmament is proving to be a tough sell. So here the would like you believe that SA is proof that gun control works.  Never mind that there’s an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to Crime South Africa. Even the left leaning is skeptical. 

After showing how firearms deaths have declined since the FCA’s implementation, they have to give up the farce and begrudgingly admit, in smaller print that

Up until 2007, firearms overshadowed other external causes of non-natural violent deaths such as sharp force injuries, burns and strangulations, amongst others, but in that year, sharp force injuries overtook firearms as the leading cause of non-natural violent deaths.

So lets connect the dots. As the gun crime went down, other forms of crime went up.  Drastically. But hey, gun crime is down, and that’s a good thing, right? Wrong. Just ask the increasing numbers of rape and sexual assault victims there. Or maybe the white farmers in SA can tell Americans how much they like being disarmed?

In order to be intellectually honest, All Africa has to acknowledge that the facts they obtained to show declining gun crime came from the South African Police Service (SAPS)

It must be noted that while the SAPS data is not considered the most reliable source on crime data, as victims often do not report crimes to the SAPS for varying reasons. Nonetheless, the data collected by the SAPS still provides a fairly good indication of the crimes and acts of violence taking place within South Africa.

Translation: Our data sucks and is probably not accurate, but it shows what we want it to show, so we’ll use it to push our agenda. We can put a positive spin on it by saying it’s all we bothered to use as a source the best we have have, so it’ll work for the purposes for which we need it.

In the fight to preserve our Second Amendment rights, we have to see articles like the Times’ piece for what they are: propaganda. The kind that slowly works its way into the subconscious of their readers. planting the seed of disarmament. I’m not worried about the Armed Intelligensia who have the experience to put stories like these in perspective. And I’m not even worried about the legions of limousine liberals in New York who lap up the NYT’s propaganda like $350 a plate caviar.

I am worried, though, about readers who don’t always look deeper into the story, think the NYT must be credible because, after all, it’s the New York Times and thus, think they’re actually reading the “news”.  This kind of bait and switch is a favorite tactic, not only the NYT, but most of the mainstream media as a whole and consistently run examples of the “wisdom” of gun control without actually showing the flip side — that crime itself marches on. With or without guns. The only question now is, do you want to be an armed citizen or a disarmed victim?


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. You are getting worked up over nothing. The only people who treat the NYT as a reliable source already believe in the anti-gun meme.

    • B’s points bear repeated repetition. We’re in the fight of our lives here. The grabbers keep singing the same old song. I think we have to keep singing ours.

  2. Never mind that the Olympic runner might have had anger management issues and, in a crime of passion, killed his girlfriend with a knife, cricket bat, hammer gun. He murdered is girlfriend.

    Or maybe she was just another skin job, and he was just doing his….

  3. I actually think there is reason to get worked up about the NYT. I have some friends who are very smart people. They make good money, are all in to personal responsibility, and generally vote conservative. Like myself they are socially liberal, secular folks who vote conservative because of taxes and the economy, as well as gov. waste… But…

    They read the NYT. Stupidly, they rely on it as their primary source of news and new analysis (you might say this makes them not smart). So they are anti-gun, or at least anti-assault rifle. They think I am a little crazy (though understand the concept) when I say, as a last resort assault rifles are protection against tyranny. But the NYT has them CONVINCED that assault rifles are useless for home defense (I concede that a handgun is generally the best home defense weapon in my opinion). So with ARs being useless to the owner anyway, why would it matter if we just banned them? It would save some children! (Not really, of course.)

    My point is that people read the NYT and they respect it… and this is not just the Obama disciples. When a so-called news organization has an agenda it drives me nuts. This applies equally to Fox News on the other side. Why can’t news organizations report unbiased news? Why can’t they give both sides equal time, and not slant things??

  4. ….all those weapons in South Africa? Can’t take them away from the criminals, the thuggish Army, or the murderous police. When looked into that light, some cripple that popped his ol’ lady ain’t much in the news world….except in that soon-to-be defunct NYT.

    • No kidding. Wanna see some incredible movie violence? Watch vids of SA coppers doing their “job”. High-speed car shootouts are de rigueur.

      Anti-car theft squads make the LAPD seem professional and well-disciplined.

  5. From the video, the law makes it harder for you defend your home from home invaders with a gun, therefore guns are not useful for defending ones home. Since they are not useful for self defense they should be outlawed.

    How can someone seriously follow that logic?

    • That same “logic” is being applied in this country as follows – guns are only for hunting, so if we ban hunting then you won’t have any use for them, so turn them in. Coming soon to a theater near you.

      • Crime happens with at least 3 criminals, all armed, and your best means of defense is locked and unloaded. And for your safety they want to take away your gun so the thugs that just broke through your door don’t use your own gun to kill you. How nice of them to think of me.

  6. The chick in the video is a dreamer, she will be dreaming when ANC thugs chase her across her front law and gun down her family using AK’s or SKS’s….as for the NYT, I stopped reading, linking or bookmarking MSM and any liberal web sites years ago, the only time I read their crap is if it is linked on Drudge, TTAG or whatever.

  7. Isn’t there some kind of evidence to suggest that Pistorius beat her with a cricket bat first?
    …yes, the Daily Mail? great source for me to site here…but the question exists. If Pistorius played a quick inning off the side of her skull before grabbing a pistol, does that not mean that he was bent on the outcome regardless of means? Or is that kind of thinking just too logical for the NYT?

    • “yes, the Daily Mail? great source for me to site here”

      You probably get more real news from a tabloid than you will get from the prestige media. Outfits like the Daily Mail will probably outlast Dodo bird media like The New York Times, which is in danger of flat lining at any moment. The only people who still believe NYT is the newspaper of record are the editorial board of the NYT, and who cares about them.

  8. Politicians assholes in the UK are talking of banning kitchen knives because of the dramatic increase in knife violence due to the gun laws.

  9. If the guy didn’t have prosthetic legs, he never would have killed that girl. He would have been just another guy in a wheelchair, with no fame or glory, and he never would have met that model in the first place.

    Blame it on the legs.

  10. Ms. Kirsten said. “What it tells us is that having a gun in your home puts you and your family at risk of being shot.”

    With this type of logic, my own car should have come through the garage to run me over years ago. Where do people get their ideas?

  11. Would we even be hearing about this if these people were not “celebrities?” Honestley, what is with this disghusting voyerstic nature of our species? I dont twit or facespace or any of that stuff and Im not saying that makes me better than other people. I just dont care who or what Justina Beaver is doing.

    Although, I admit a problem with Snookis pregnancy would be kind of amusing. Just so the doctor could say, “it looks like we have a little Situation here!”

  12. I live in South Africa. I am a gun owner. Gun or no gun, one does not feel safe here. The levels of crime are ridiculous. Like to start with, we have a murder rate of 32 in 100 000. That is pretty bad. Now look at one of our municipalities down the road from me Richmond, 192 in 100 000. Our rape statistics are off the charts as well. The solution of course, make it near on impossible to get a gun.
    The beloved 12 bore pump gun, unless you specifically hunt bushpigs, or live on a farm where that can be considered in the cops mind as a self defence weapon, forget about it.
    You are allowed 1 weapon for self/home defense, handgun or shotgun (and good luck with a shotgun) you have to get printed, registered, your safe inspected, your psych history and friends/ family will be consulted etc etc. and the license is only valid for 5 years when you have to go through the entire circus again.
    You can apply under the context of occasional / dedicated sportsman where the same will be required, as well as proof of your hunting / sporting achievements, but dont think that that allows you to carry your sporting pistol for self defence. Unless you are on the way to a practice or competition, you may not carry a sporting weapon. And this waste of a perfectly good orgasm is the key reason behind this disarmament.

    USA, don’t stop fighting for your rights.

  13. I’m not sure that “murders are down but other crime is up” is compelling argument to antis. I suspect many of them would gladly trade one murdered for thousand beaten, robed or raped victims. (After all, dead peasants can’t work).
    Instead, I’d rather point that murder rate was already going down before passing Firearms Control Act of 2000 – in fact, it was dropping faster before the Act than after. In six years prior to the Act murder rate dropped 25.6%, while in six years following the Act it dropped only 18.7%.

  14. Gee thanks you old bag for telling me I can’t get to my gun to defend myself and even if I did someone is going to take it off me. Clearly not living in reality.

    Reality is what will happen one day to her and the family when really bad men get past her security guards (who are in on the deal) and spend hours playing with all of them before it all ends.

    Maybe she should read the SA papers more and learn just how violent her world is.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here