« Honoring Lones Wigger | Main | New gun debate site: Mea culpa or public service? »

March 01, 2008

This page has been moved to http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Gun Shots at its new location: www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots.

N.Y. Times To Gun Owners: Be Reasonable You Crazy Freaks

It hardly comes as a surprise that in the days leading up to the potentially history-making gun-rights case that will be argued in the U.S. Supreme Court this month that the New York Times has decided to launch a public anti-gun crusade.

In an editorial that appeared today (“Gun Crazy”), the New York Times bemoaned the lack of political action to strip law-abiding citizens of their rights after the shootings at Northern Illinois University in February.

One of the more curious aspects to the Times’s call for greater gun restrictions is the acknowledgment that the proposals won’t actually do anything to curb the types of crime that prompted the paper’s outrage:

“No single measure of combination of measures can ensure that deranged individuals are prevented in every instance from shooting up a crowded classroom or shopping mall.”

Nonetheless, the paper insists that doing “nothing” isn’t an option. So here’s the Times’s prescription to fix the problem.

  • Make it illegal for private citizens to sell and trade firearms. (The so-called “gun-show loophole.)
  • Make it illegal to purchase more than one gun a month
  • Ban high-capacity magazines and the firearms that use them

To argue how each of these suggestions would fail to increase public safety or stop people who have murder in their hearts is a waste of time. Even the anti-gun Times knows they wouldn’t do anything other than make it more difficult to own guns and more permissible for the government to curb our rights.

This is the familiar “reasonable step” argument, which states that after each horrible crime you enact a small number of “reasonable” gun control measures. After enough tragedies, because of course “no single measure of combination of measures” will stop the bloodshed, these “reasonable” measures will eventually achieve the goal of the anti-gun zealots: a complete ban of private firearms ownership.

Lest you think this overstates the distain in which the Times regards those of us who own firearms, consider the concluding statement in the editorial:

“The Democrats should not be afraid to challenge Mr. McCain—or gun zealots’ wacky idea that the solution to campus mayhem is to arm teachers and students.”

So anyone who thinks that having a gun for self-protection in a gunfight—rather than crouching behind a desk while frantically hoping that dialing 911 will save them—is a zealot.

Call me crazy then.

—John Snow



I guess I'm crazy too.

Charles W. Anderson

Do you really think a desk or a couch will stopa bullet from a high caliber rifle or pistol?????and by the time help comes via 911 you might be the one they re carrying out .The politicans dont go out on the mean street without protection of some kind and they usually have the police parked outside their homes.Do you really think they care a dam what happens to us????


I agree that people should have the right to protect themselves and trained, CCW holders would be a huge deterrent in these situations.

Knowledge of when, where, how and why to use a firearm in a school shooting situation (and other situations as well) would absolutely save lives.

I feel every citizen should have the right to become a trained, ccw holder and a part of (what I think should be called) the 21st century militia.

This militia would assist all citizens in the everyday fight against crime and could be a true first responder against crime and senseless killings.


Jim in Mo.

Ignorance is hard to respond to, if necessary at all.


Jim, that is one of the best responses I've ever read to any blog or response to anything. Got to remember that one.

Blue Ox

True, you just can't reason with someone who refuses to listen.

Jim Kiser

Lets get this picture right. The Times is a paper like the Washington Post and the LA Times that makes up stories that have no basis in fact whether it is politicians lives or the common mans right to defend himself. Anybody notice how much the present day enrapature of the press over Barrack Obama and the destructive stories about the US military are very similar to the 1930's Germany.

don m.

only a WELL ARMED citizen, ?????



I guess we're all supposed to die like good little members of the proletariat while the staff of the New York Times self-congratulates itself on how reasonable and fair-minded it is.

The New York Times wouldn't use the word "zealot" to describe a member of Al Qaeda, the Taliban or Iranian government, yet they have no qualms about using such a description on citizens of their own country who support a Constitutional right. Tells you a lot about which side they are rooting for.


This article simply shows that even with the conclusion from the Centers for Disease Control after seven years of studying gun control laws says they don't work (notice that they violated the regular rules of sourcing their statment, because it didn't suit their objectives), the NY Times still calls for the 'old hat' patches that have been shown ineffective.

Again, Democrats and liberals depend on emotion and throw logic and considered thought out the window, appealing to the simple thoughts of the 'sheeple' that are out there - remember, half of the people in the US are 'below average'. And the national media have shown that Hitlery's and Obama's supporters fall predominantly in that category. So also must the NY Times target that constituency if it's to rally support for that same core group to get their candidate into the White House.

Unfortunately, the conservatives in this country don't have a major paper or network in the US so we have an uphill battle to get our thoughts and beliefs into the public view - so like I do, we must all start to write to the local papers and get on the radio stations and have our point of view presented to our neighbors. We can also go out an talk to everyone and challenge them to think with their heads and no longer be 'sheeple'.

We must also support the NRA, the CCRKBA and the GOA.


As a retired Police Officer with 31 years experience, I too believe that certain members of our society should not nor can now legally possess a firearm, but I also think that some measure of control should also be used in controlling our Press to insure that what we read is indeed the truth, not some "Zealot" anti-gun writer's opion. This "small measure" of control over the press, along with some other "small measures" added as needed to insure the safe and truthful use of the written word would help in controlling the few that would like to strip the rights of all. While we're at it shouldn't we also attempt to stop the other "Mighty Few" that sway society by reporting only their side of issues. By the "Mighty Few" meaning T.V., Newspapers, radio, magazines, etc. (the media). When was the last time any of the media reported on how often a firearm has saved someone when the police couldn't be there in time to do it for them. The mere presence of a firearm has many, many times changed the outcome of a crime when a potential victim was armed.

Roberta X

IL has already got serious restrictions on firearms ownership -- and it didn't do a lick of good. I'm not sure if they've got all the restrictions the Times is quoted as pushing but the shooter bought his guns in-state, from an FFL.

The only way to stop a determined loon with a gun is countervailing force: shoot back.

Chris H.

Gun control goes against Newton's law. For action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You shoot bullets in my direction, bullets come flying back in your direction. Equal reaction, opposite direction. Take away my gun and you've disrupted the laws of physics!

I really like the idea of a 21st century militia!

Gun Owner

Gun Owner to NY Times writer(?),
Actually, you are the zealot. Besides that, as I remember Einstein (if I recall correctly)said " the defiition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Such as more inefective (and unreasonable) gun control laws. So who's crazy anyway?