The New York Times lays their cards on the table

It took a while for the authors to stop beating around the bush and get to the point but, to their credit, the New York Times is finally being honest…They want an all out ban on guns. Actually, they are only being half honest. They don’t go so far as to state a total ban on ALL guns but, “large categories” therein. Certainly, any modern firearm meant for serious defensive purposes. Let’s be honest…This really shouldn’t be “news.” Objectivity in the media has been a myth since before Walter Cronkite signed off for the last time from South Vietnam.

What is interesting is that in building up to the singular point of the editorial, they admit that all the bans and other legislation they desire has utterly failed to prevent tragedies like San Bernadino from happening throughout Europe. Whether it be the recent events in Paris, today’s stabbing in London, or suicide bombings, these incidents still happen. While I am not among those who would say, “Oh well, nothing we can do…” I am not willing to be vilified, made scapegoat, and stripped of the right to self-defense or the means I choose to effect said self-defense.

-GM

“…It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

Source: End the Gun Epidemic in America – The New York Times

Darren Wilson’s story begins to surface in NYTimes Report

“…Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.”

via Police Officer in Ferguson Is Said to Recount a Struggle – NYTimes.com.

It’s been two months since Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. That shooting lit the fuse on a long standing powder keg of rage for issues that have existed since before either Darren Wilson or Michael Brown were even born. Fanning the flames of racism and fear were conflicting reports from witnesses claiming Brown was unarmed and shot for no reason. The media of course, was no help, reporting erroneous data and initially portraying Brown as an innocent “teen” who’d been gunned down in cold blood for no reason other than being another black male in the wrong place at the wrong time. Well now it looks like we’re finally getting some part of Darren Wilson’s side of things and learning facts that support police statements that have been made along the way.

Sadly, some won’t be happy unless Wilson stands trial regardless of what facts come out. What’s sad however, is when people like the Brown family attorney, Benjamin L. Crump, ignores the way he knows the law works when it works fairly and makes public demands for something else. According to Crump, “What the police say is not to be taken as gospel…” Crump instead demands that Wilson be indicted by the grand jury and his case sent to trial no matter what. Crump continued, “He can say what he wants to say in front of a jury. They can listen to all the evidence and the people can have it transparent so they know that the system works for everybody.” According to Crump, “…Right now, they have this secret proceeding where nobody knows what’s happening and nobody knows what’s going on. No matter what happened in the car, Michael Brown ran away from him.”

So time will tell how this all shakes out. But, as we’ve said for some time, this increasingly looks like a justified shooting. A body camera or dash camera would go a long way in proving facts one way or the other as we’ve seen time and time again but, neither Wilson nor his patrol unit were so equipped. As we’re seeing here, when you rely on witnesses, you have to filter through the individual biases and personal agendas of everyone involved while trying to match that to the evidence available at the scene that may or may not be conclusive. Unfortunately, we already know this shooting has changed everything regardless of how it turns out.

-GM

“Assault Weapons,” for once, the New York Times tells the truth.

“OVER the past two decades, the majority of Americans in a country deeply divided over gun control have coalesced behind a single proposition: The sale of assault weapons should be banned.

That idea was one of the pillars of the Obama administration’s plan to curb gun violence, and it remains popular with the public. In a poll last December, 59 percent of likely voters said they favor a ban.

But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.”

via The Assault Weapon Myth – NYTimes.com.

 

I was a senior in high school when the original Clinton crime bill and “Assault Weapons Ban” was steamrolled through Congress and ultimately signed into law. The fact handguns were used in the vast majority of homicides and that black men (many of them my age at the time) were most likely to be both victims and perpetrators was known then. But the media and liberal politicians made the case that it was “evil assault weapons” that were the problem. That was twenty years ago as of this writing. I even made a presentation on that fact in one of my classes that year.

Then, as is the case now, the issue wasn’t guns or gun control. In play, was a broader range of much bigger social and economic issues having little to do with guns or gun control. But, no one wanted to hear that then. And they sure as heck don’t want to hear it now. Why? Because there are no quick solutions that one can hang their hat on within the confines of a typical presidential or congressional election cycle. There’s no real solution that will please the mob in the short term. And ultimately, because the plan then, as it is now, is to marginalize guns and gun owners, one sub group at a time. If you can do that, it’s easy enough to call for compromise, common sense, and reasonable regulation eliminating the right to bear arms all together through attrition over time. Make no mistake, that has been the end game goal all along. The gang and drug related violence and death that disproportionately impact black males only serve to bolster that goal by fanning the fears of conservatives and liberals alike. Again, these are facts that have been known for over thirty years but rarely reported on by the mainstream media. That is, until now.

I don’t know if the New York Times is under new management/ownership but, call me shocked to have seen a truthful article on guns pubished in their website today. It is anything but a “pro gun” article but, it is remarkably free of the typical anti-gun push the NYTimes and other mainstream media publications have come to be known for. It’s the first time I’ve seen a mainstream media publish recognition of the fact there are bigger societal issues at play.

“More than 20 years of research funded by the Justice Department has found that programs to target high-risk people or places, rather than targeting certain kinds of guns, can reduce gun violence.

David M. Kennedy, the director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, argues that the issue of gun violence can seem enormous and intractable without first addressing poverty or drugs. A closer look at the social networks of neighborhoods most afflicted, he says, often shows that only a small number of men drive most of the violence. Identify them and change their behavior, and it’s possible to have an immediate impact.” via The Assault Weapon Myth – NYTimes.com

So, maybe, just maybe, there are people in the media with more than two brain cells to rub together. Maybe, just maybe, the focus will shift to addressing real problems rather than just symptoms. Time will tell. If history is an indication, before sundown, the New York Times will come to its senses and resume printing the typical anti-gun screed for which they have long been known. But, one can always hope.

-GM