NYT Gun Editorial
The sum of their points are:
- the second ammendment is a disgrace, people shouldn't be able to buy weapons that can kill people: only police and government should have them.
- motives don't matter (their words) don't fix the problem at the source, blame the tool.
- Americans should NOT judge all Muslims by a few fanatics, but you SHOULD judge all gun owners by a few fanatics (that got their guns illegally). Ignore that there's less intersection between gun owners and this violence than there is between Islam and violence
- France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws and often more/bigger mass shootings, but at least they're trying. Ignore that the policy only makes things worse.
- These guns were illegal in California, and that didn't stop them, so everywhere should copy the ineffective policy.
- implied in all this is "damn the consequences, tear the nation apart for the food of fascism, now". Ignore the insurrection and deaths that would result from their policy -- anyone that defends the constitution, deserves to die.
It's one giant appeal to emotion, riddled with lies, errors and distractions. Our crime rate has been falling, as our liberties increased, and we have a lower casualty rate than the countries the NYT thinks we should model ourselves after -- so they want to change that.
A few others plugged their noses at the stench coming from the Grey Lady’s digestive tract, and tore the article apart:
The basics are that it’d cause an unrest and huge costs, for what? Assault weapons that NYT is proposing to ban entirely, would cost billions of dollars, require is to do door to door searchers and siezures, with many lives lost, all for <250 lives lost per year to the entire category of weapons — about 450 people die from falling out of bed each year, and 600 die from Autoerotic asphyxiation (strangulating themselves while masturbating). It sure seems like the NYT just invented the editorial page version of that with their proposal, giving NYT editors a masturbatory pleasure strangling the Constitution (and free advertising for the DNC), while doing absolutely nothing of value for the rest of us.
Of course, people that like the editorial, aren’t particularly concerned about the logic or facts that refute it, how condescending it is to anyone with a clue about guns and crime, or what the consequences would be. It has the naked raw-emotional appeal that makes them happy to be maligning and persecuting a minority that they disagree with: people who have and enjoy collecting, competition, hunting, or making their careers in anything to do with guns.
They were so sloppy in their epic front page editorial, that they got duped by a fake website:
But even the NYT admitted the gun debate is over and futile —
- (1) Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true.
- (2) They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist.
- (3) They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did."
If guns aren’t the problem, it can’t be legally implemented, and doesn’t help, then Democrats can continue to try to divide us on something that’s implausible and unhelpful (and would result in a civil war), but it just ain’t happening. Everything after that is just handwringing.
Did you hear the mic drop? I did. Thank you and goodnight, don’t forget to tip the waitstaff. [thud] 2015.12.05