Ammo For Sale

« « knoxvilletalks.com | Home | Public Land Carry » »

NYT: Mouthpiece for the anti-gun lobby

This piece, complete with PSH, comes to us from the paper of record:

Barely touched on in the coverage of the two latest gun rampages is how the disturbed shooters could so easily obtain assault rifles — weapons designed for waging war.

Barely touched on because it’s untrue. An assault rifle is a select fire weapon that fires more than one shot per pull of the trigger. The shooters in these cases used semi-automatic rifles that fire one round per pull of the trigger.

The Omaha killer took his stepfather’s rapid-fire rifle from a closet to pick off Christmas shoppers.

Doing the Brady Campaign’s work for them, the NYT continues to conflate semi-automatic rifles with machine guns.

Guns are ubiquitous in this country, and the gun lobby is so powerful that this year’s toll of 30,000 gun deaths makes barely a political ripple.

Yes, it’s the NRA’s fault!

Until recently, the nation did have a law designed to protect the public from assault rifles and other high-tech infantry weapons.

No, it didn’t. The ban on weapons that look like assault rifles banned aesthetic features that new semi-automatic rifles could have. The ban did not impact high-tech infantry weapons, whatever those are.

In 1994, enough politicians felt the public’s fear to respond with a 10-year ban on assault-weapons that was not perfect but dented the free-marketeering of Rambo mayhem. Most Americans rejected the gun lobby’s absurd claim that assault rifles are “sporting” weapons.

PSH alert for Rambo reference. But the whole premise of this editorial is based on misinformation so why not throw in some hysterical emotional appeals? And, if the public was for it, why, then, did all those politicians get voted out of office after the ban passed? And why did the House vote to repeal the law?

Instead of asking how could this happen, the country needs to know who is going to stop it.

Well, gun control won’t stop it. After all, we had the assault weapons ban in 1999 when the Columbine attack occured.

12 Responses to “NYT: Mouthpiece for the anti-gun lobby”

  1. Robb Allen Says:

    I did some research on the CDC. The 30,000 gun deaths correlates exactly with the “43 times more likely” myth – i.e. 17,000 of those deaths are suicide.

    Of the ones marked as homicide (only about 13,000), you cannot determine how many were considered justified. They’re just lumped in as “deaths”.

    Again, it’s lying with statistics.

  2. Good_ol_Al Says:

    …who is going to stop it. Ms. Assam (and others) are doing their part.
    NYT should get with the program.

  3. Kirk Parker Says:

    Uncle,

    To pick a nit, nobody voted to repeal the ban; it had a sunset clause when it was passed and nobody voted to extend it.

  4. chris Says:

    But when it came up for renewal in 2004, President Bush and Congress caved to the gun lobby and allowed the law to lapse. This was despite Mr. Bush’s campaign vow to renew the ban.

    Not true at all.

    The AWB (mercifully) sunsetted in September, 2004.

    Bush unfortunately wanted to renew the AWB, but Congress (again, mercifully) failed to renew it.

    Thus, Bush never got the chance to renew it.

    Facts are pretty much meaningless to the NYT when it makes an issue its cause celebre.

    Kind of like it did 4 or 5 years ago, when it unilaterally decided that Augusta National Country Club needed to admitt women members.

    IIRC, the NYT ran 64 articles/editorials about the matter, causing IBM to withdraw its sponsorship of the Masters.

    Such withdrawal of sponsorship was short-lived, however, when the boys at Augusta National to CBS and IBM that they were holding the tournament irrespective of who covered it or didn’t cover it.

    CBS and IBM learned that it is difficult to threaten a person or institution which doesn’t need money or public prestige (Augusta National having more than CBS or IBM).

    And the MSM wonders why its sphere of influence keeps getting smaller.

    My chihuahuas put the print media to its highest and best use.

  5. Magus Says:

    From the article page:

    Tips
    To find reference information about the words used in this article, double-click on any word, phrase or name. A new window will open with a dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry.

    Hrmmmm…. It does? Let’s see the results….

    Double clicky the phrase “assault rifle”….

    Dictionary

    assault rifle
    n.

    Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.

    (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007)

    WordNet

    The noun assault rifle has one meaning:

    Meaning #1: any of the automatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use

    (WordNet 1.7.1 Copyright © 2001 by Princeton University.)

    2001, there was one meaning and it was automatic rifles.

    2007, a dictionary has sliped semiautomatic into the definition.

    In a war of ideas, it seems that one of the tactics of the anti-rights side is to change the meanings of the words.

  6. Jacob Says:

    Bush didn’t want to renew the Clinton AWB. If he did, it would have happened. He paid lip service to the antis and did nothing.

  7. Ron W Says:

    Bush did say he would sign a renewal of the AWB….and I’m assuming he still would.

    The Republican House leadership did not bring it for a vote in Sept 2004…and it didn’t even have the votes for renewal. Even some Democrats opposed its renewal like my TN 6th District, Bart Gordon. Otherwise, Bush hid in the tall grass trying to be both sides… pro-gun and anti-gun.

    This is one of the issues that distinguishes between patriots and tyrants regardless of party.

  8. ben Says:

    “To pick a nit, nobody voted to repeal the ban; it had a sunset clause when it was passed and nobody voted to extend it.”

    I think that’s not true. The House, IIRC, did in fact vote before 2004 (1996 maybe?) to actually repeal the ban well ahead of the sunset date. Didn’t get past the senate nor Clinton.

  9. MarkF Says:

    The ‘other high tech infantry weapons’ doubtless is a reference to bayonets, as removing bayonet lugs was the one functional change achieved by the ’94 ban.

  10. Mike W. Says:

    How can you throw so much misinformation and flat out lies into a piece and still call it news?…

  11. tgirsch Says:

    And, if the public was for it, why, then, did all those politicians get voted out of office after the ban passed? And why did the House vote to repeal the law?

    Not directly relevant to this particular topic, but this isn’t the best argument you could have come up with. A noisy special interest group can get a lot more attention in Washington than a majority of the populace, and that has been historically true of both sides of the gun debate. The passage (or failure to pass) of some particular piece of legislation doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with its popularity (or lack thereof) among the general population.

  12. SayUncle Says:

    True enough but it was in reference to their assertion regarding public fears.