New York Times at it again...

M

Musketeer

New member
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/opinion/30tue3.html?pagewanted=print

January 30, 2007
Editorial
A Day Without Guns ...
Twenty years ago, the Florida Legislature cravenly decided to allow “law abiding” citizens to carry concealed weapons merely by declaring their preference for self-defense. Then last July, at the prodding of the gun lobby, the current crop of state lawmakers proved they could be even more corrupt and cowardly than their predecessors by deciding to make the list of gun-toting Floridians a secret.

Fortunately, a local newspaper has given residents of the state a final look at their representatives’ gruesome handiwork.

When the law was first enacted, there were fewer than 25,000 licensed gun holders. Since then, the state roll has boomed to 410,000 and counting. As the veil descends on this dangerously macho part of the public record, enterprising articles in The Florida Sun-Sentinel are laying bare the fact that more than 1,400 people easily got gun licenses despite pleading guilty or no contest to felonies that included manslaughter, burglary and child molestation. In Broward County alone, gun licenses grew in 20 years to more than 35,000 from 25.

Sampling records just before the law took effect, the newspaper uncovered hundreds of tales of mayhem, official indifference and glaring loopholes in criminal justice protection. One man got a license after pleading no contest to manslaughter in fatally shooting his girlfriend in the head while she cooked him breakfast. Another applicant was licensed despite guilty pleas to grand theft and assault charges for holding a handgun against his roommate’s head in an argument.

Those permitted to pack concealed weapons include 216 people with outstanding criminal warrants, 128 under domestic violence injunctions and 6 registered sex offenders.

The gun lobby, predictably enough, is blaming “bleeding-heart, criminal-coddling judges and prosecutors” for this grim state of affairs. The truth is that the National Rifle Association has succeeded too well in herding legislators to do its dangerous bidding. Lawmakers in 38 states have approved bills allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons.

As in some of those states, Florida’s legislators take the position that it’s no fun to have a gun if you can’t use it. So they loosened the laws on self-defense to allow a civilian to stand and use deadly force “if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary.” If lawmakers had any sense of shame, they would undo these lethal threats to their constituents.
Click to expand...

and here is my letter to the editor...

Once again the NYT has shown its decidedly liberal bent. This time it has done so by insulting hundreds of thousands of law abiding Florida citizens as well as any other American who believes in the Second Amendment and a personal right to defend themselves. Yes, there are incidents where individuals slip through the system, the vast majority though meet all the qualifications and are honest citizens. And for every person who manages to through luck obtain a permit illegally (and it is illegal if they did so under false pretenses and were just not caught), far more are stopped. The real criminals though really do not care about permits and never have.

You claim there are 410,000 permit holders in Florida and were able to find the shocking number of 216 with criminal warrants. You do not indicate if these are cases of the warrants having been issued after the permit or any other details. Even if we assume the worst, 216 permits issued to those with criminal warrants, we have a whopping 0.05% problem permits. I think the amount of criminals holding public office most likely far exceeds that number yet I see no outrage from you on that front. The NYT does not get its facts correct 99.95% of the time yet you continue to publish your paper and forward your agenda under the illusion of being impartial journalists. Which group do you think I should believe given their performance, the NYT (based on your accuracy) or the FL Dept. of Agriculture (who manages the permit system the last time I checked)?

Of course the NYT writes with the traditional hubris of most NY media. I know because I am a resident of this state. There is a good reason most of the country hates us and the NYT is often the perfect place to see why. Obviously you have no problem with the permit system in place in NYC and the rest of NY State. There is a difference between FL and NY though. In FL it is an accepted right of ALL citizens of the United States, even those from outside the state can obtain a FL permit. In NY though it is reserved for the rich and politically connected. If you have friends in the local government, have made contributions to the appropriate organizations, or simply have the money to hire lawyers to fight out your case obtaining the permit is no great problem. Of course the NYT has no problem when it is their “type of people” who gain permits but has plenty of issues with those dirty plebeians, especially Southern ones, being able to obtain one.

You then attack the famous Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Law of Florida without any real understanding of it. To justifiably use deadly force you must be the victim of a crime which you did not cause or escalate. Exactly why is allowing the honest citizen to defend himself against the armed violent criminal a bad thing? If the justifiacation is called into question then it is up to a jury of twelve to decide it. I know the NYT and other liberal media were frothing at the mouth in expectation of the streets “running red with blood” when the law went into effect. It must have been tragic for you when, just like when permits were first issued to all lawfull citizens, that failed to happen.

In the future I would hope that the NYT would do a little real research before making their decisions and backing it up with hysteria. The chances of that occurring are doubtful though. I, like other holders of pistol permits around this nation, are statistically one of the most law abiding groups of citizens. Even though we are the citizens least to be feared by the law abiding we are consistently treated as criminals by the likes of the NYT. I went through State and Federal background checks for my permit. What checks were required of you before being able to poison the minds of readers around the world? Not any I would wager.

Once more the NYT is out of touch and disconnected from reality and the majority of America.
Click to expand...
 
On behalf of Americans who still believe in the Second Ammendment, thank-you for generating such an articulate, thoughtful letter. I would, however, be amazed beyond belief if anyone at the NYT actually read it in its entirety. Once its recipient catches the drift of the document, they will scoff, scowl and file it in a round container next to their desk.

Is there a media outlet that would publish it? I'm really wondering if there's an outlet that mainstream America would have a shot at seeing. Sure, a conservative site would run it, but then the only people who read it already know the truth. I don't have any answers. I just wish we could spread the truth to EVERYONE... not just to each other.
 
Musketeer, a well written letter with facts that get straight to the point and no threats and obscenities, is the best way to counter those that spread lies and half-truths about guns and the 2nd Amendment. Good letter. :)
 
Well done Musketeer, I too am from NYC. Let me know if you have any political ambitions so that I may contribute to your campaign.
 
Musketeer, excellent letter! One caveat, however. This is an editorial, not a regular article. Editorials tend to be more partial, as they are opinions by nature. While you could argue that the NYT is being very anti-gun by publishing this editorial, I think a rebuttal would do better concentrating your anger and retorts against that article and its points rather than against the NYT.

I agree with your points, but the way you worded it basically guarantees that the NYT won't publish it. Now we just have this editorial and nothing to counter it. What we really want is a published editorial that counters all of the points in this one.

(I'm not trying to knock you, just an observation for the next time (though hopefully there won't be a next time))
 
The Times can dish it out, but can they take it? We'll see.

I sent the following to the NYT "letters to the editor" section. I provided my own "edited down" version to them so they wouldn't have much reason to claim it was "too long".

Here's the full-text version:

Rebuttal to A Day Without Guns

The view from the Left Coast:

Twenty years ago, the Florida Legislature bravely embraced a novel concept - allowing the citizens of the state to actually defend themselves against crime using legally carried handguns. Opponents clamored there would be "blood running in the streets" with people shooting each other over fender-benders during rush hour. It never happened, of course, and the media rarely, if ever, mentions that Florida's crime rate subsequently fell below the national average.

Now Florida lawmakers have closed another "loophole" in the law by restricting the names and address information of concealed firearm holders. This makes sense if you think about a reckless and irresponsible newspaper aiding and abetting criminals by publishing the list of permit holders, thus allowing any criminal to target gun-owners for a surprise attack to obtain their guns. It is the anonymity of who is armed which makes the criminal wary about plying his trade.

The recent vitriol laced NY Times yellow-journalism editorial describes this state of affairs with adjectives like gruesome, craven, corrupt and cowardly. Do the editors really think it is "cowardly" to allow a woman to defend herself against a rapist in the parking garage? Tell that to your wives and daughters. Do you think anyone should be able to obtain the personal information of permit holders? If so, I'll look forward to the publication of the names, addresses and home phone numbers of every NYT employee in the next edition, thank you.

Florida now has records on 410,000 people who have taken the mandated training courses, been fingerprinted and obtained a background check to get their permits. As with any program administered by the government errors occur. In this case, the error rate is around 0.3% - three TENTHS of one percent. Over a twenty-year timeframe, with about 20,000 new permits a year, an error rate this low is remarkable. Likewise, studies have shown that permit holders, as a group, are more law-abiding than the general population. That makes sense, given the amount of time and money required in order to complete the permit process in most states.

Twenty years ago, this concept was unthinkable to people in politics and the media. The possibility that The People would be allowed to carry a firearm in public was as laughable as the New York Times endorsing Ronald Reagan for President. The result of the Florida law, however, has been the revision of concealed permit laws across the nation. Thirty-eight states no longer rely on the corrupt New York City model of political cronyism and back door donations to obtain a government permission-slip, a document routinely denied to crime victims. Instead, the majority now issues permits based on objective standards and within the mandated time, something officials in eastern cities seem incapable of accomplishing.

At least Florida has taken a stand on the subject of crime. Florida has chosen to stand behind its citizens by allowing them to defend themselves against predatory criminals. More importantly, Florida has put criminals on notice that the State's citizens no longer have to retreat when attacked, but may defend themselves immediately.

If it were only so in New York City.
Click to expand...

Here's the short-text version which is more likely to get published (i.e. slightly better odds than being struck by a meteor).

Rebuttal to A Day Without Guns

Twenty years ago, the possibility that The People would be allowed to carry a firearm in public was as laughable as the New York Times endorsing Ronald Reagan for President. Reagan won. So did the people of Florida. The Times was wrong on both counts.

The recent NY Times yellow-journalism editorial describes this state of affairs with adjectives like gruesome, corrupt and cowardly. Do the editors really think it is "cowardly" to allow a woman to defend herself against a rapist in a parking garage? Tell that to your wives and daughters. If you think anyone should be able to obtain the personal information of permit holders, I will look forward to the publication of the same for every NYT employee in the next edition, thank you. Moreover, the NYT complains about a measly 0.3% error rate in the process, over twenty years. That's certainly less than the Times error rate on news reporting.

At least Florida has chosen take a stand with its citizens, by allowing them to defend themselves against predatory criminals.

If it were only so in New York City.
Click to expand...
 
I also wrote them, and for the record I don't think there is a better paper on the globe covering international politics. Dont forget, our gun rights now hinge on several Pro-Gun democrats in the congress. I think Bush is a fool and corporate dupe. My grandfather worked in, and died from, working in a coal mine. He fought against big business and corporate greed and believed unions were the only way a working man was going to get any justice. He was as much against welfare for parasites as he was against corporate welfare built into our tax code. That is my liberal democratic tradition, not Kennedy or his anti-gun friends.

Hello,
I have been reading and subscribing to your paper for 25 years. Your ed page article on Florida concealed carry laws was the poorest piece of attack journalism I have ever seen and had no place in your usually fine paper. It is fine to point out problems concerning loopholes in the law. We all need to know this to rectify the situation. Unfortunatly, this piece seemed to be merely a pretext to attack the American people's right to bear arms. I consider myself a liberal and am proud of that. I believe in the Bill of Rights, and feel the founders had a very good reason for making the right to bear arms the second amendment. Your stating that people wanting to protect themselves were "macho", and that legislators in 38 states were "herded" by the NRA is way out of line. I don't need to argue the merits of the right of "law abiding citizens" to protect themselves, for that is not the issue. The issue here is your disrespectful attitude towards people who feel the 2nd amendment is there for a reason. Many people are not able to defend themselves because of their age, size, disabilities and a variety of other reasons. Your article jeers at the opinions of the people of 38 states, who feel that citizens should have a right to defend themselves. This article was lopsided to the extreme. You made no mention of the fact the the "bloodbath" predicted by opponents of the original Florida concealed carry law never occurred, and that the murder rate in Florida dropped continually in the years following this law. The fact that its success in Florida encouraged many other states to follow suit is not mentioned. This is no surprise, as its clear this is an attack piece, rather than an attempt to rectify a problem which we can all agree on. No one wants felons to have guns, yet you insinuate that anyone for the second amendment is somehow endorsing this "gruesome" outcome where child molesters are issued gun permits.

I am considering canceling my subscription even though I feel you publish the finest paper in the USA. I think you misjudge your readership. There is a reason the carry laws have passed in 38 states. Many people do not feel safe or protected by the police. You take no account of this legitimate fear, and act like it is just a gang of radical gun nuts that have passed these laws. Did you see the police protecting people in New Orleans? What if your grandmother was stuck there without any protection? This is not about macho gunslingers. Those people are gang bangers and they don't care about the laws anyway. This is about sincere responsible people wanting to be able to protect themselves and their families in often dangerous neighborhoods.

I hope you will publish this letter but I expect that will not happen as your paper is clearly run by people who feel safe and live in safe places. They have no need for guns or for protection and thus assume no one else does either. You many take note that Washington DC has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. A person cannot even own a pistol in DC, let alone carry one. Still, after many years of this law disarming honest people, this city has one of the highest murder rates in the country. The policies your paper obviously supports will not disarm the killers, it will just make their victims defenseless.

Richard Kiovsky
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top