The Dishonest NY Times And Guns
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Display list of topics
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-03-06 09:40 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 2596 references Ignore this thread
The Dishonest NY Times And Guns
[Comments enabled]

This is the sort of article that should lead to a flat-out boycott and destruction of this "newspaper".

Specifically, they speak of Mexico, which has extremely stringent gun laws -- and only one legal gun store.  They make this out to be better than the United States, but intentionally fail to state the obvious: Their murder rate is 17.03 per 100,000 people (in 2016) or roughly three times that of the United States and roughly double the gun homicide rate even though the US has six times more guns per-person than Mexico does.

In other words the number of guns owned and the ease of acquiring them has nothing to do with the gun homicide rate nor with the murder rate overall.

What does?

Are you completely dense?

The "war on drugs."

Mexico has a monstrous war on drugs and the drug war is responsible for an enormous percentage of the homicides in the country exactly as is the case here in the United States.

In fact all violent crime, including homicide, has fallen precipitously in the United States -- by about half -- since 1991.  I know, you don't believe Mises -- so go look it up for yourself using the FBI Data, which I assume you do trust, right?

At the same time the number of privately-owned firearms has gone up dramatically in the United States.  Obviously more guns do not mean more crime (much less more murders) or the murder rate wouldn't have fallen by half over the period of time that the number of guns has skyrocketed.

But it has.

These are facts folks.  Never mind that the specific weapons in question with regard to Parkland -- so-called "assault rifles" (which are nothing of the sort; an assault rifle is capable of select-fire, and these are not) are really just defined as guns that someone thinks look scary.  Well, I assure you that if you're staring down the business end of a gun all guns look damn scary.

The facts on those rifles are even more-clear - - there are several million - - estimates are about 3 million, in fact - - AR-pattern rifles in the United States in law-abiding civilian hands.  I also note, for the record, that "AR" does not mean "assault rifle" -- it means Armalite Rifle, as it's a brand -- that is the company Armalite was the one that came up with the civilian, legal, auto-loading rifle fitting this description and pattern.

About 1,000 people, out of 13,000 gun homicides a year, are killed with rifles of all descriptions.  Roughly 100, more or less, are murdered with Armalite Rifle style weapons.

The NY Times and others are arguing for banning something because fewer than 0.0033% of them are criminally misused; all of the rest are owned and used for perfectly-legal purposes by law-abiding Americans.  This is equivalent to arguing for the banning of ownership of pick-up trucks because a religious nut used one to murder people in New York, which I remind you did happen just last year.

In addition about 90 Americans a year are murdered while traveling in Mexico, or about the same number of people killed with Armalite-style rifles (and about the same number murdered in mass-shootings annually too.)  Yet only about 25-30 million Americans visit Mexico a year which means on a per-person basis it's 10 times more dangerous to go to Mexico than it is to go to school, a mall or other place where mass shooting occur (which basically every American does.)  Is anyone seriously considering destroying Mexico for this outrage?  Or shall we talk about the number of illegal invaders that murder Americans every year -- also far more than 100.  May I remind you that the Democrats -- and the "David Hogg" crowd -- are all for those illegal invaders being here, even though they're here illegally, and even though they are responsible for about 22% of all homicides.  Were we to send all of them home every one of those homicides would not happen.

To put numbers on this that amounts to about 4,000 murders a year or some 40 times the number of people killed in mass-shootings.  David Hogg supports the policies that cause every one of those 4,000 murders.  He's a liar and a fraud -- period.

This is not about "common sense" or any other sort of sense.  It is a purely political witch-hunt, promoted with knowing lies and intended to destroy both Constitutional protection of the right to self-defense and your inherent right to life (2nd Amendment) along with the right to not have private property taken or otherwise compromised without compensation and due process of law (5th Amendment.)

In short the argument put forward by the NY Times and others is in fact about the advancement of the intentional destruction of America as a Constitutional Republic.  Such advocacy and intentional falsehoods, along with any attempt to implement same through government demand or even through private enterprise coercion must not stand.

If you believe in America you have a duty to boycott and legally destroy all businesses that take such a position along with legally destroying the political and economic future of any politician or other public employee, whether federal, state or local, along with any "spokesperson" and everyone that benefits from their activity who adopts any such position in any way, shape or form.

To not do so is to flush the Constitution of the United States and indeed our very nation's foundation as a Constitutional Republic down the toilet of history.

View with responses (opens new window)