Skip to comments.DOING THE RESEARCH THE NEW YORK TIMES WON'T DO [Ann Coulter Exposes Gun Control Fraud]
Posted on 01/11/2013 2:44:33 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
In Sunday's New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal claimed, as the title of her article put it, "More Guns = More Killing." She based this on evidence that would never be permitted in any other context at the Times: (1) anecdotal observations; and (2) bald assertions of an activist, blandly repeated with absolutely no independent fact-checking by the Times.
There is an academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period...It concluded that the only policy to reduce the incidence of, and casualties from, mass shootings are concealed-carry laws. The Times will never mention this study.
Instead, Rosenthal's column proclaimed that armed guards do not reduce crime because: "I recently visited some Latin American countries ... where guards with guns grace every office lobby, storefront, ATM, restaurant and gas station. It has not made those countries safer or saner."
So there you have it: The cock crowed, then the sun came up. Therefore, the cock's crowing caused the sun to come up. Rosenthal went to Harvard Medical School.
Here's a tip: High-crime areas are often bristling with bulletproof glass, heavy-duty locks, gated windows and armed guards. The bulletproof glass doesn't cause the crime; it's a response to crime. On Rosenthal's logic, hospitals kill people because more people die in hospitals than outside of them...
Rosenthal also produces a demonstrably false statistic about Australia's gun laws...
"After a gruesome mass murder in 1996 provoked public outrage, Australia enacted stricter gun laws, including a 28-day waiting period before purchase and a ban on semiautomatic weapons. ... Since, rates of both homicide and suicide have dropped 50 percent ...," said Ms. Peters, who lobbied for the legislation."
(Excerpt) Read more at anncoulter.com ...
It is much more akin to a propaganda sheet produced by a communist government.
It should be given the same credibility.
In 1996 the US murder rate was 7.4/100k. In 2011 it was 4.8. A decline of 35% during a period when many states passed concealed carry laws and the number of guns in the country increased significantly.
criminals have adapted. Now they stab you to death instead of shooting you. That was the net effect of their gun ban homicides.
Meanwhile Assaults have increased by a rate of 5% a year every year since the 1997 gun ban.
Assaults from 1995 to 2007 (number per month)
The trend in assaults shows an average growth of five percent each year from 1995 to 2007, four times the annual growth of the Australian population in the same period
And sexual assaults, that meas rape for the uninitiated, have increased by 50% since the gun ban.
Sexual assault victims from 1995 to 2007 (number per month)
This graph illustrates that an unarmed woman is much easier to rape than a well armed woman.
We need to do better as conservatives to talk to them in their language. They want to feel more. Loving, generous, caring, smarter, open minded, superior in general. They “validate” emotional response over intellectual evidence. We need to produce information that tugs the heart strings more!
For the 2nd amendment debate we need to portray (NOT report, Portray) commercials “based on a true story” of events where people saved themselves from crime with their guns. For abortion, we need to show the joys of holding babies; both moms and dads versus the loneliness of small coffins. For welfare reform we need to show the pride of accomplishment of work vs. the emptiness of watching TV all day.
I'm not a marketing guy. We conservatives will not win on facts alone!
If you Leftists and liberals come to confiscate Americans’ guns, armed Americans will kill you.
The reason liberals do not trust facts is because they are liars and facts have no meaning. The only reality they have is their own and they can only trust their feelings.
The way the liberals are changing society is through cultural means (media). “Because you can’t learn through personal experience and discovery alone all you need to know, things are set up so you can simply believe what others tell you. You know some things thru tradition, others from “experts.” [quote from sociology research design text]
The sociology and psychology “experts” are liberal and know how to get the sheep to do what they want. It’s in all the text books. Funny thing is, the psych majors don’t have the brains to realize that the motivation has not been based on facts, but on emotional responses. They are still global warmists and abortionists.
Truer words were never spoken.
The 2012 presidential election is living proof of that.
On facts and performance alone, Hussein should have been laughed out of office.
The New York Times CANT do. They rely
on plagiarism and whatever the DNC orders them
Liberal logic: A 16 year old has the right to kill her unborn baby, but I can’t defend my family with a 30 round magazine.
Liberal logic: It is not a crime for a 21 year old to kill her unborn baby, but if someone murders that same pregnant 21 year old, the liberals want the murderer charged with two counts of murder. Figure that one out!
These days, anecdotal observations and bald assertions with no independent verification are the norm for “journalists.” If done effectively, promotions, and possibly a Pulitzer prize, are the rewards.
This is all fine and well - and the NY Slimes needs to be repeatedly called out for its blatantly false and/or misleading stories and editorials.
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was not passed to enable people to defend themselves against run of the mill street criminals. That’s a side benefit, to be sure, and is without question the motivation for a lot of people to buy guns and get training, but it is not the main reason. The reason the 2nd Amendment was passed was so that the militia (i.e. the people) would have the means to defend this country against invaders (foreign enemies) or a potential tyrant (a domestic enemy). The mere fact of there being so many firearms spread throughout the nation has a huge deterrent effect against both types of enemies, in the same way the a huge nuclear arsenal had a deterrent effect on the ambitions of the Soviet Union during the Cold War - i.e. the potential results of setting off that tripwire will be so horrible that there could be no victory in either case.
This fight is about nothing more and nothing less than our right to remain free and undominated by our own government. Anything else - crime prevention, hunting, matches of one kind or another, collecting - are of minor consequence in comparison.
The whole idea of using crime or hunting as the reason for the 2nd Amendment is that of the gun-grabbers, because that’s how they can insert the idea of “reasonable gun control” into the debate. With regard to preventing tyranny, reasonableness is not an issue. As George Washington stated: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
You only get one chance to prevent a tyranny. Once you lose, there are no “do-overs.” By the nature of the thing, tyrannies brook no opposition...as shown already by Obama and crew, who are desperately trying to take away the most effective means of resistance to tyranny: modern, box-magazine fed, semi-auto rifles.
Colter should concentrate her considerable ire and intellect on this issue - she’d have more impact on the debate.