The NY Times - at it again

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/us/more-concealed-guns-and-some-are-in-the-wrong-hands.html?hp

The gist of the article is that out of the many folks who get permits, some do some bad things. Well, how about that - how many folks who run for president, become coaches, priests, CEOs, etc. - do bad things?

It has a nice graphic of the change in gun carry laws from 1981 - which of course, they think is shocking. It is a symptom of the isolation of the Manhattanite class they are from, not to consider SD as legit and fear of the unwashed gun toter outside of Manhattan or DC.

The commentary points out much of these faults - including the failure to consider the balance of positive uses and the fallacy of just including a vivid instance to make a point (not that all opinion makes of all types don't do this).

I posted a comment - sometimes they don't get in. I once had a letter to the editor critiquing Al Gore's gun policy accepted by the lower level but it never made it in press. :confused: :D
 
I find it...interesting...how they cherry pick situations, and immediately assume causation instead of correlation. Particularly when, at a glance, the numbers given don't seem out of line with overall crime statistics. And at least with the instances they site, a) there does seem to be some failures in NCs background check and information sharing, which reflects more on an overburdened bureaucracy than the permit holders as a whole, and b) this is purely speculative, but it is certainly questionable whether permit or no permit some of the people involved would have carried any way or gotten into altercations with another weapon or barehanded.

To me this just points out what I think most people know or would have to agree to in a rational discussion. There are some bad apples out there, they should be dealt with individually and not spoil the bunch. I think it's interesting how easily it's forgotten, in the media and public opinion, that people have always done terrible things to each other, but fortunately a majority don't go around shooting, stabbing, bludgeoning, etc other people. Those intent on harming others or of disposition towards violence are not suddenly going to disappear if all the guns in the world did.
 
It looks like they have a collection of anecdotes that don't really tell us whether concealed handgun permits are a problem. Mentioning that some people "fall through the cracks" doesn't tell us much either. It would be nice if they compared permit holders to the general population but that wouldn't support the point they are trying to make.
 
Wait until the New York Times figures out that there are people walking among us who have committed serious, violent crimes and are still walking about free on the streets of our fair nation. These criminals "fell through the cracks."

Hopefully, the NYT won't propose the equivalent of its preferred gun control policy and suggest we all be jailed in order to prevent the few bad guys from "falling through the cracks."
 
The article is certainly biased on a few fronts. Primarily, it only emphasizes NC concealed carry policies. The reference to criminal shootings by concealed carry permit holders being more statistically valid than self defence shootings is suspect.

I enjoy reading the NYT for it's detailed foreign coverage; but, this article crosses the boundary between factual news reporting and editorializing. It stretches their motto of "all the news thats fit to print."
 
I view this not so much as a serious argument that affects anything on a national level as I see it as some anti-gun New Yorkers trying to protect their little anti-gun bastian.

The same occurs in Chicago and it's influence on Illinois.

But the tide of public opinion is against this type of thinking as evidenced by how many people procure CHL / CC permits when the laws finally allow it:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...2230040/-Unbelievable-rise-in-weapons-permits

The same thing happened in Wisconsin:

http://www.channel3000.com/news/29856077/detail.html

http://www.suntimes.com/news/8553422-418/wis-concealed-carry-gun-applications-pile-up.html
 
It is obviously a piece that advocates the Senate not passing the national reciprocity law. What else is new for the NYT? It is something that a Senator can cite and add to the congressional record when the proposed law is debated. I suspect this is the dominant reason for publication of the article NOW.

I wish the NYT author would have compared the statistically "small number" of permit holders are convicted of felonies relative to the total number of permit holders versus the general population crime statistics for people over age 21. Since they mentioned "white middle aged men" are more prone to getting concealed weapons carry permits, then let's come up with that group to compare the crime statistics.

I suspect the truth is at best the statistics will show that it is a lower % of permit holders are convicted of felonies or violent crime versus the regular population. But instead they cite case examples.

But since they are talking about crime, why not detail just who commits most of the crimes in the first place.

Since they do not state statistics that might support the concealed carry right, it is a disguised advocacy piece and WHY I refuse to read the NYT in the first place.
 
I'm staying home and hiding under the bed after reading that article. No one ever got shot in a drunken brawl, road rage incident, etc before these crazy CCW laws came about. :p
 
The Times mentions that eight out of 240,000 permit holders committed a murder or manslaughter with a gun in a five year period. How does that compare with the rest of the NC population? It seems like a very low homicide rate to me.

I wonder why the Times doesn't mention that 35 felons were killed (justifiable homicides) by private citizens in NC over the five year period. A citizen doesn't have to kill a felon in order to count as a successful defense with a gun but it sure seems to me that the vast majority of NC permit holders are acting within the law when they use a gun.
 
Gun advocates are quick to cite anecdotes of permit holders who stopped crimes with their guns. It is virtually impossible, however, to track these episodes in a systematic way. By contrast, crimes committed by permit holders can be.
Click to expand...
Meaning: "We choose to ignore half of the equation."
 
While it seems well written, though slanted, the examples they use are more of an exception then the rule. A large population will, generally speaking, have some incidence of criminal activitiy. Using a large figure of concealed carry permit holders as "potential criminals" is wrong because its generally a small amount that does violate the law and is caught in some way. I find very few statistical studies that are not slanted because the researchers remove some of the minor extremes on one side, while leaving in those on the other side to prove their point. I learned that in college statistics class.

Do I feel the system could be tweaked? Sure. Its seldom our government works perfectly. Should it be eliminated all together, one extreme or the other? In my mind, No. As has been mentioned the current concealed carry has had many positive aspects as well, which rarely goes mentioned.
 
2damnold4this wrote -
The Times mentions that eight out of 240,000 permit holders committed a murder or manslaughter with a gun in a five year period. How does that compare with the rest of the NC population? It seems like a very low homicide rate to me.
Click to expand...

The rate is even lower if you consider that statistics are generally quoted for an annual period. Therefore, the rate would be eight out of 1.2 (240k x 5) million permit holder opportunities. That translates to .667 per capita, per year.
 
Based on the Facts in the article, it appears that the individualls and incidents reported in the article would have had guns with or with out the permit system.

As usual the reporter believes that every gun is registered like they are susposed to be in New york city.

Any use for self defense is, even with official documentation is unsubstiantiated.

This case is at best yellow journalism. More probably it is a Brady handgun propaganda piece.
 
I haven't had a chance to read all the article, but I smell a rat. The press here in NC would have had a field day on its own if there was much to the story. So would NC's against Gun Violence & others. They will be spreading the NYT story by tomorrow though. Fuel for their fire.

The article may be partly right, as I often see where felons commit a crime with a gun, but don't always get charged with "firearm by felon" & often don't go back to prison when violating parole. We have a lot of issues here with keeping thugs where they belong.

Our own press here gives little attention to parole absconders, repeat offenders & parolees who should not be paroled to start with. 3 of our high profile murders in recent years were absconders & parole violators still out. The liberal groups never mention it at all, but like the NYT, they jump all over guns any way they can.
 
A friend e-mailed me the link. The article did a nice job of parsing their statistics to support their point. So in NC in one year, 200 "crimes" were committed by permit holders. Read carefully and you find this includes motor vehicle "crimes" -- but they don't define what is included in "motor vehicle crimes." Does that include operating without a license? Operating under the influence? failure to maintain insurance? Driving an unregistered vehicle, or swapping the plates off some other vehicle?

Who cares if a guy who drives a vehicle with an expired tag has a carry permit or not? Only the NY Times, and only when it helps them paint permit holders as criminals.

So we have 200 crimes in a year by permit holders. Even the Times admits this is a small percentage of permit holders, but they don't say HOW small. Does anyone know how many actice carry permits there are in NC? I don't, but I'd be willing to bet a Diet Coke that it's enough to make that small percentage VERY small.

Even including the "motor vehicle crimes," what does 200 crimes in a year really mean? That's 200 crimes out of 365 days, out of 52 weeks. That equates to one crime every 1.825 days, or 3.85 crimes per week -- spread out over the entire STATE of North Carolina.

This just does not strike me as a crime wave worthy of reporting in the New York Times, or even the Dogpatch Daily Doily.
 
Surprised??? The NYT would welcome a general confiscation of all firearms. Stopped reading it years ago along with Time, Newsweek, etc. Only practical if you run out of toilet paper. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top