NYT’s Kristof: Time for liberals to face some uncomfortable facts about guns

posted at 2:01 pm on January 18, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

Has someone tampered with the water supply at the New York Times? In the past six days, its featured columnists have penned not one but two essays urging readers to reconsider the progressives’ march on gun control and the Obama administration’s big public-relations push as well. Neither one carry Ross Douthat or even David Brooks bylines, either. Yesterday, Nicholas Kristof explained a few “inconvenient gun facts” to fellow liberals, and underscored why voters consider their ranting to be nothing but demagoguery:

We liberals are sometimes glib about equating guns and danger. In fact, it’s complicated: The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half.

Then there are the policies that liberals fought for, starting with the assault weapons ban. A 113-page study found no clear indication that it reduced shooting deaths for the 10 years it was in effect. That’s because the ban was poorly drafted, and because even before the ban, assault weapons accounted for only 2 percent of guns used in crimes.

Move on to open-carry and conceal-carry laws: With some 13 million Americans now licensed to pack a concealed gun, many liberals expected gun battles to be erupting all around us. In fact, the most rigorous analysis suggests that all these gun permits caused neither a drop in crime (as conservatives had predicted) nor a spike in killings (as liberals had expected). Liberals were closer to the truth, for the increase in carrying loaded guns does appear to have led to more aggravated assaults with guns, but the fears were overblown.

Kristof then goes to the question of Congressional resistance to gun-control regulation. Progressives blame the NRA for frightening politicians into ignoring polls showing broad support for universal background checks, but Kristof says they have no one to blame but themselves:

So why does nothing get done? One reason is that liberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners and empower the National Rifle Association by coming across as supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed about the guns they propose to regulate. A classic of gun ignorance: New York passed a law three years ago banning gun magazines holding more than seven bullets — without realizing that for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less.

And every time liberals speak blithely about banning guns, they boost the N.R.A. Let’s also banish the term “gun control”: the better expression is “gun safety.”

The problem isn’t the nomenclature — it’s the dishonesty in the attacks. Kristof does a pretty good job of explaining how progressives get the facts wrong, but he misses how they got the politics wrong. After the Newtown shooting, progressives demanded a renewed “assault weapons” ban as well as insane magazine restrictions, some of which passed in states like New York and Colorado. Then when those didn’t move in Congress, progressives then pretended that all they requested was expanded background checks, but they had alienated everyone that might have worked with them on that issue long before then.

The same thing happened recently, too. After two shootings in the final three months last year, Obama twice hailed Australia as a model of an industrialized country who successfully implemented gun control without once acknowledging that they had imposed a confiscation policy to do so. Obama then acted shocked, shocked when critics accused him of wanting to take away guns from law-abiding citizens. He promised significant gun-control regulation through executive action, but largely offered a minor adjustment to the definition of a firearms-sale business. Obama now pretends that he’s part of the mainstream on guns, but the fact that he didn’t touch the topic in his State of the Union speech shows that he’s belatedly realized how far on the fringe he has become.

As if Kristof’s scolding wasn’t curious enough, we also have Charles Blow making some sense on gun issues at the Gray Lady, too. Five days earlier, Blow wrote that the debate over guns had gotten derailed by efforts to impose broad new restrictions on people who don’t actually pose a threat. Why not, the progressive columnist asked, focused on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?

Our current discussion about increasing gun regulations often centers on efforts that would mostly affect people who legally buy firearms. Many of them make sense, in theory, but the truth is that they would not be likely to have a huge impact on criminal gun violence, because many of those criminals obtain their weapons illegally.

So, when the gun lobby and gun owners make this case, we must admit that they have a point. …

In a 2003 book, “The Challenge of Crime,” published by Harvard University Press, authors quoted researchers who found the following:

“They learned that 32 percent of the felons had acquired their most recent weapon through their own theft; an additional 14 percent knew that their friend, family, or street source had stolen the weapon before conveying it; and an additional 24 percent thought that the weapon probably had been stolen by his source. At least 46 percent, then, and possibly as many as 70 percent of felons’ most recently owned firearms had been stolen either by the offender himself or by the source from whom he acquired the weapon. In addition, 47 percent of the respondents quizzed as to whether they had ever stolen a firearm during a crime admitted to so doing and 86 percent of the felons who admitted prior stealing of firearms reported multiple thefts.”

Rather than focusing on all guns, the vast, vast majority of which are owned by responsible people and are never used in the commission of a crime, we have to focus on keeping guns out of the hands of this relatively small number of criminals.

Tom Maguire wonders whether Blow has been kidnapped:

What?!? A NY Times columnist not named Douthat cracking the progressive monolith on “gun owners = bad”?

It’s a curious turnaround, although Tom also notes that Kristof has in the past debunked the registered-and-insured-cars analogy on which Blow relies to declare some gun owners “unreasonable.” Does this mean anything? Most columnists work independently, so we can put aside the conspiracy theories about coordination — and besides, this was the same newspaper that demanded gun control on its first front-page editorial in 80 years. If anything, the correlation of the two columns show that many on the Left are relearning the lesson from the 1990s about pushing gun control all over again, and perhaps especially on how ignorant their own side is on the finer points of policy and opinion outside the Acela-corridor bubble.

Update, 1/19: Yes, I know that both Kristof and Blow use their columns to take a couple of potshots at gun owners, and to flog for impractical and infringing regulation. That’s not the point. The bigger picture here is that even the liberal commentariat is recognizing that the Left’s gun-control arguments are irrational, uninformed, and irrelevant to the issue of gun violence. They both undermine the Left’s intellectual pretensions in the debate. That’s worth pointing out, and bookmarking.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

“It’s not that we’re wrong, it’s just really not working out liked we’d hoped.” This is progress.

spd rdr on January 18, 2016 at 2:07 PM

Maskirova to convey an air of reasonableness before another totalitarian assault on the Constitution. And if the authors were not appearing in the NYT/Pravda, they would have been purged by the Left. It still may happen.

Subotai Bahadur on January 18, 2016 at 2:07 PM

Baby steps….but headed in the right direction!

Von Kleist on January 18, 2016 at 2:08 PM

In fact, the most rigorous analysis suggests that all these gun permits caused neither a drop in crime (as conservatives had predicted)


Mr Kristof
, the lying liar, tells one above – states have increased access to concealed carry because it DOES cause a drop in crime – in order to advance his NEW agenda –> change the Narrative from “gun control” to “gun safety” … which will poll more favorably.

How is it you missed the key thrust of the article, Ed?

PolAgnostic on January 18, 2016 at 2:09 PM

The gun control issue is a shiny to distract voters from the fact both parties push a near identical agenda of socialism.

Magicjava on January 18, 2016 at 2:10 PM

When terrorists (or the simply insane) start planning their mass-shootings for gun ranges and police stations then you can blame the high concentration of guns. Until now, it only happens where things are “safely” gun-free.

RBMN on January 18, 2016 at 2:10 PM

The issue is, firearms are safer now then they have been in the past. Accidental discharges (ie one’s that happen without a trigger being pulled,) are rare. Drop a modern gun, and it’s not likely to fire.

So, how can you make a safe gun even safer? And how does that prevent a criminal from using it…

So called “smart guns” are a pipe dream. Might as well promise that before a gun will fire it will upload a sight picture to the cloud, and a law enforcement agent will sign off on the shot. (Maybe I should patent that…)

Heck, you can go to a hardware store and buy the material for a zip gun. Criminals in jail can get and make guns. Drugs and illegal aliens cross the border in droves daily.

So, they make it harder for legal gunowners to buy firearms, with little actual impact on crime. People legally buy guns in droves, and it reduces crime. Seems like if they wanted to eliminate criminals, they’d make the castle doctrine and concealed carry apply everywhere. If you shoot a criminal in the act of a crime you ought to be rewarded.

Keith_Indy on January 18, 2016 at 2:15 PM

My guess is that they’ve seen the polling on this issue and have broken out into a flop sweat over it. Blow and Kristof are trying to help dial back the rhetoric ONLY to help ameliorate the potential damage for the Dems in the general.

Atlantian on January 18, 2016 at 2:17 PM

Is anyone in the gun lobby getting targeted by the IRS? No.

The Tea Party gets targeted by the IRS.

Magicjava on January 18, 2016 at 2:19 PM

as Trump has repeatedly pointed out, it is completely asinine to have “gun-free zones” on military bases, and the Ft Hood and Chattanooga shootings are examples.

The attack is the third act of domestic terrorism carried out on U.S. military facilities since 2009. A fourth attack not considered an act of terrorism, in which 12 people were killed and three wounded at the Washington Navy Yard, occurred just two years ago.

In June 2009, Muslim convert Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad killed one soldier and wounded another at a recruiting center in Little Rock, Ark. In November of that year, Army Major N____ M____ H____* carried out an attack at Ft. Hood, Texas, that left 13 dead and 32 wounded.

Last year, another shooter at Ft. Hood killed three people and wounded 16.

These combined attacks at military facilities bring the casualty count to 34 dead and 54 wounded by gunfire since 2009.

We’ve now lost 34 people serving in uniform on Barack Obama’s watch, and there are 54 other servicemen and women carrying wounds from attacks on domestic military facilities.

Senator Philip Bluster on January 18, 2016 at 2:20 PM

Concealed carry hasn’t “caused a drop in crime” because it’s not allowed in high-crime (blue) cities and states. Duh.

DrDeleon on January 18, 2016 at 2:36 PM

“Sudden Outbreak Of Common Sense Strikes NYT Editorial Board; HazMat experts dispatched from ACLU, White House and Justice Department to contain spread “.

orangemtl on January 18, 2016 at 2:37 PM

Why you guys post the same thing repeatedly is rather annoying, so I will repeat myself:

From the CDC’s own WISQARS database:

Firearms deaths:

All intents 33,599

Suicide 21,334

Homicide 10,945; An estimated 80% of these are gang or gang related: 8756. Take out the gangs, and the rate of homicide is 0.7/100,000.

Legal intervention 464

Unintentional 586, for a rate of 0.18/100,000.

Other Assault Firearm Non-Fatal Gunshot – the rates/100,000 2002-2013:

2013 r=19.68

2012 r =18.92

2011 r=17.85

2010 r=17.55

2009 r=14.50

2008 r=18.57

2007 r=16.16

2006 r=17.68

2005 r=17.01

2004 r=14.88

2003 r=14.63

As can be seen, there is not much, if any, of a trend, but now the inconvenient truth, and bear in mind that this is the CDC’s numbers that anyone can go look up at the link above, or this one for injuries:

Rates for non-fatal firearm assault 2013 by race:

Black 60.4/100,000
Hispanic 20.9/100,000
White Non-Hispanic 3.28/100,000

Highest rate age groups:

15-19: 51.74

20-24: 76.80

25-29: 48.80

Firearm homicide rates:

White 1.93
Black 13.66
Am Indian/AK Native 3.03
Asian/Pac Islander 0.89

Highest rate age groups:

15-19: 5.95

20-24: 10.53

25-29: 8.86

Bear in mind yet again, this is the CDC’s own data, and though I know data are anathema to leftists, there is a definite trends these show and point to a problem other than firearms, but to admit it would be both to be called a raycisss, and to have to admit to failures of leftist policies.

F X Muldoon on January 18, 2016 at 2:38 PM

OT or not

Warning on the picture

Schadenfreude on January 18, 2016 at 2:41 PM

How is it you missed the key thrust of the article, Ed?

PolAgnostic on January 18, 2016 at 2:09 PM

Because Ed agrees with it. Ed firmly believes in the concept of “Reasonable Regulations”. This, despite the egregious fact that the 2nd amendment leaves absolutely zero room for those oh so reasonable regulations.

oscarwilde on January 18, 2016 at 2:43 PM

There’s always an agenda. Any apparent walk-back on progressives’ push to confiscate guns and kill the Second Amendment is no different than takiyya in Islam; lie to your enemy in the service of achieving your actual goals against them.

Never relent in fighting progressives’ attempts to encroach upon the 2nd. EVER.

xNavigator on January 18, 2016 at 2:43 PM

Liberals were closer to the truth

…said no one other than a mental Left-Tard…ever…

…truth is an inconvenience for Left-Tards…

Pelosi Schmelosi on January 18, 2016 at 2:45 PM

Ed, you might want to go and re-read that article. He is making $hit up with progressive facts and using long ago debunked “survey” that perpetuates the 40% of guns sold don’t get a background check myth in that article.

Johnnyreb on January 18, 2016 at 2:48 PM

My guess is that they’ve seen the polling on this issue and have broken out into a flop sweat over it. Blow and Kristof are trying to help dial back the rhetoric ONLY to help ameliorate the potential damage for the Dems in the general.

[Atlantian on January 18, 2016 at 2:17 PM]

Agreed.

Dusty on January 18, 2016 at 2:49 PM

My favorite from the comments section:

I think it’s naïve to expect the right to compromise, though of course they ought to…The best thing that could happen right now in the politics of guns would be for Martin O’Malley (specifically him) to come out in favor of the gun policy that would actually work – a total ban on private ownership of all firearms except hunting rifles.

RadClown on January 18, 2016 at 2:51 PM

So why does nothing get done? One reason is that liberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners and empower the National Rifle Association by coming across as supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed about the guns they propose to regulate. A classic of gun ignorance: New York passed a law three years ago banning gun magazines holding more than seven bullets — without realizing that for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less.

I have yet to meet a “gun control” advocate who knows the difference between bullets and cartridges or who can properly describe the distinction between semi-automatic and full-automatic firearms.

novaculus on January 18, 2016 at 2:54 PM

Tom Maguire wonders whether Blow has been kidnapped

Not kidnapped, but forced to come face to face with all those ‘deranged’ gun owners by his brother, who as it turns out is a gun collector and took Charles to a gun show in San Antonio last month.

He wrote a column about it in the Times before he wrote this second column. It’s harder to demonize your enemy when you enemy then also has to include a member of your own family.

jon1979 on January 18, 2016 at 3:02 PM

Ed, you might want to go and re-read that article. He is making $hit up with progressive facts and using long ago debunked “survey” that perpetuates the 40% of guns sold don’t get a background check myth in that article.

Johnnyreb on January 18, 2016 at 2:48 PM

I saw that as well. Suffice to say this was little more than a thinkly veiled slight of hand intended to seem non-partisan and rational, relying on nonsense statistics to again fall back on the alleged need for increased background checks.

Nothing quite like a “scientific survey”. As if there is no difference between the number of gun sales that were subject to a background check and the number of survey respondents who claim to have bought a gun and whether or not they knew that a background check had been performed.

I mean, no progressive would ever respond to such a survey and lie about having bought a gun and been subject to a background check.

deadrody on January 18, 2016 at 3:04 PM

It’s harder to demonize your enemy when you enemy then also has to include a member of your own family.

jon1979 on January 18, 2016 at 3:02 PM

Not for a liberal it isn’t.

oscarwilde on January 18, 2016 at 3:04 PM

The best thing that could happen right now in the politics of guns

I hate to break it to the latte sipping mousy brown NYT commenter but if she thinks a total ban is ‘the best thing’ she will get the politics of guns inserted in a very sensitive area.

jangle12 on January 18, 2016 at 3:05 PM

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The ONLY permit ever needed to bear arms.

irongrampa on January 18, 2016 at 3:17 PM

Because Ed agrees with it. Ed firmly believes in the concept of “Reasonable Regulations”. This, despite the egregious fact that the 2nd amendment leaves absolutely zero room for those oh so reasonable regulations.

oscarwilde on January 18, 2016 at 2:43 PM

Hey! “Shall not be infringed” is a reasonable regulation. It’s just not a regulation on we the people but on government. That’s what makes it so “Unreasonable” to leftists and fools. Sorry for the redundancy.

Oldnuke on January 18, 2016 at 3:22 PM

A fact liberals should understand by now is that while they always claim to have the support of at least 80% of the people they get chewed up time after time over gun control in elections.

As Bill Clinton said to the intransigent gun banners on losing their 40 year control of the House of Representatives after his “assault weapons” ban: How many more congressional seats do you want to lose?

RJL on January 18, 2016 at 3:26 PM

Is anyone in the gun lobby getting targeted by the IRS? No.

The Tea Party gets targeted by the IRS.

Magicjava on January 18, 2016 at 2:19 PM

Operation Choke Point by the FDIC and the DoJ targets gun stores. Progressives have weaponized most of the federal government. I look forward to seeing how progressives like it when that weapon is turned on them.

iconoclast on January 18, 2016 at 3:33 PM

It’s harder to demonize your enemy when you enemy then also has to include a member of your own family.

jon1979 on January 18, 2016 at 3:02 PM

Not for a liberal it isn’t.

oscarwilde on January 18, 2016 at 3:04 PM

However, in this case, Charles’ brother is the one with the gun collection.

jon1979 on January 18, 2016 at 3:42 PM

What does Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao Tze Tung and Pol Pot have in common? They are Dictators who instilled gun control in their countries before they killed tens of millions of people who disagreed with their governance of their countries. What does Hugo Chavez, Karl Marx, Fidel Castro and Obama have in common? They are leaders of their countries who are gun control zealots that are forcing their wills on their countries against the best interests of their citizens.

volsense on January 18, 2016 at 3:47 PM

Don’t fall for it. If multiple NYT columnists are spouting it then it is a coordinated effort likely from Media Matters. The secret of what it is can be found in Kristoff’s piece. “Rebrand their efforts as Gun Safety”. Yeah just as they moved to rebrand “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”. They are seemingly giving ground simply to pull their normal deceptive and serpentine language tricks and redefine words and terms to come at it from another angle. It’s more Progressive Bullshit, nothing more. Alinsky in action yet again.

patches on January 18, 2016 at 3:52 PM

It’s a losing issue for Ds at the ballot box. The columnists just want them to stop losing elections.

InterestedObserver on January 18, 2016 at 3:55 PM

Yet this, too, must be said: Americans are absolutely right to be outraged at the toll of guns. Just since 1970, more Americans have died from guns than all the Americans who died in wars going back to the American Revolution (about 1.45 million vs. 1.4 million). That gun toll includes suicides, murders and accidents, and these days it amounts to 92 bodies a day.

Yet this, too, must be said: Americans are absolutely right to be outraged at the toll of ABORTION. Each year since 1973, more Americans have died from ABORTION EVERY YEAR than all the Americans who died in wars going back to the American Revolution (about 1.5 million yearly vs. 1.4 million in our entire history). That ABORTION toll includes DEAD BABIES and amounts to nearly 3,000 bodies a day.

Response from the progressives: Oh, that’s a right, a choice, and none of your business.

They can just bugger off. Bunch of liars.

xNavigator on January 18, 2016 at 5:04 PM

What ever happened to the “settled law” or “law of the land” that liberals always speak so highly of? Well, the right to keep and bear arms is both settled law and law of the land.

supersport667 on January 18, 2016 at 5:05 PM

Nicholas Kristof also said:

n short, let’s get smarter. Let’s make America’s gun battles less ideological and more driven by evidence of what works.

The one piece of ‘evidence’ that Liberal commentators studiously avoid involves the total gun deaths. That number, if reported properly in their reporting, would also state that the total number in fact consists of 60% of those deaths being caused strictly by suicide, and not via criminal activities.

UPNorthWolf on January 18, 2016 at 5:10 PM

Is anyone in the gun lobby getting targeted by the IRS? No.

The Tea Party gets targeted by the IRS.

Magicjava on January 18, 2016 at 2:19 PM

That’s because the “gun lobby” has it’s very own batch of jackbooted thugs (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives) to give us their full attention. In addition to the IRS.

SDN on January 18, 2016 at 5:15 PM

So called “smart guns” are a pipe dream. Might as well promise that before a gun will fire it will upload a sight picture to the cloud, and a law enforcement agent will sign off on the shot. (Maybe I should patent that…)

Smart guns must consent to being fired, and unless the gun owner has that consent, preferrably in writing, the gun should remain holstered or locked away.

Heck, you can go to a hardware store and buy the material for a zip gun. Criminals in jail can get and make guns. Drugs and illegal aliens cross the border in droves daily.

You don’t even need that much. Captain Kirk was able to shoot the Gorn by finding sticks and dirt on an uninhabited planet.

digitalhap on January 18, 2016 at 6:05 PM

Bump.

Still waiting on an answer to these questions. If CD won’t answer, maybe some other of our resident leftists would like to take a shot:

What evidence suggests to you that leftists can be trusted to deal with their opponents honestly?

What evidence suggests to you that leftists’ gun control proposals are based in reality?

What evidence suggests to you that the NRA’s position is not based in reality?

Oh, and…

Why not, the progressive columnist asked, focused on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?

Because that’s not who the left wants disarmed. If they could get away with confiscating all property and assets of any kind specifically and solely from white conservatives, they’d do it.

See Tlaloc for an example, who is perfectly comfortable with taking someone’s kids away and turning them out into the street for daring to be a conservative Christian. He has said so before on this very blog.

GrumpyOldFart on January 18, 2016 at 6:13 PM

Something that might be in play here with liberals, is the likelihood that many of them want to participate in the
“own a gun, carry a gun”, game too. While they won’t publicly admit it, I’m betting many of them are just as concerned about future safety trends as are many conservatives. There won’t likely be any significant data (yet) on political makeup of licensees, but I’m thinking that some of these guys are beginning to think that Libs need to be careful to not be too successful in the gun grab arena, lest they be on the wrong end of a barrel at some future date…

Skip2014 on January 18, 2016 at 6:24 PM

When it comes to guns and gun control liberals are their own worst enemy. Gun owners pay attention and liberals are champions of incremental regulations that includes an ends of total prohibition………..it’s what they do, despite their arguments to the contrary.

antipc on January 18, 2016 at 6:26 PM

Never trust a Liberal on guns.

If they sound reasonable, it is strategic. If they give ground on an issue they have a different plan that is just not immediately apparent.

Their goal was, is, and will always remain the same. They want to eliminate the private ownership of guns. They know they can not get there immediately, so they are happy to work incrementally. If it takes a hundred years, so be it.

Rights once lost can only be regained at a terrible price. The ratchet only goes one way. So it is necessary to oppose gun control efforts at every turn. No matter how finely crafted, how minimal, how reasonable sounding, we must always be opposed. Because each step is one more step toward their goal.

So the only response to any proposal must always be to tell them to bugger off. We don’t agree to anything.

gridlock2 on January 18, 2016 at 6:41 PM

You don’t even need that much. Captain Kirk was able to shoot the Gorn by finding sticks and dirt on an uninhabited planet.

Uninhabited planet? Hardly. It was at Vasquez Rocks, on the 14 Freeway just south of Palmdale. The sulfur, salt peter and charcoal are all gone, but the diamonds as big as your fist are still lying around all over the place.

EyeSurgeon on January 18, 2016 at 7:06 PM

Molon labe

307wolverine on January 18, 2016 at 7:32 PM

It’s because highly partisan freaks like Kristof and Blow realize how bad the politics are for the Democrat Party on this issue.

How two fools with a combined IQ of 195 realized this, I don’t know. But like Forrest sometimes disabled people like Kristof and Blow can be correct without even knowing why.

ramesees on January 18, 2016 at 7:33 PM

NYT’s Kristof: Time for liberals to face some uncomfortable facts about guns

It’s about time… uncomfortable in that my guns are NOT for hunting.
Read: 2nd Amendment.

And somehow, I don’t think I’m alone in this belief…

Voodoo Chile on January 18, 2016 at 8:28 PM

The leftist media base is feeling the Bern. If they can successfully get Democrats and leftists at large to abandon their time-wasting war on the Second Amendment, they can attempt to take Sanders’ support for gun rights off the table.

Sgt Steve on January 18, 2016 at 8:33 PM

Most columnists work independently, so we can put aside the conspiracy theories about coordination…

When two arch-liberal-left columnists come out with the same contrarian message it’s just because it finally became obvious? Right. Your parents never got around to the “Santa talk” with you, Ed?

New flash: Hillary doesn’t want to have nothing to separate herself from Obama on, especially an issue that is going south even in Obama’s priorities. And Bernie sure doesn’t want to have to explain voting with the NRA to the whackos if he’s the nom, does he?

So out goes the message from MiniTrue: “We have always been at war with illogical and ineffective gun-grabbing.”

It will take some months for that whopper to morph from the ludicrous to the profound, so they need to get started early. Journo-list lives!

Ray Van Dune on January 18, 2016 at 8:41 PM

Rather than focusing on all guns, the vast, vast majority of which are owned by responsible people and are never used in the commission of a crime, we have to focus on keeping guns out of the hands of this relatively small number of criminals.

Blow gets this right; Kristof skates around it.

Concealed carry hasn’t “caused a drop in crime” because it’s not allowed in high-crime (blue) cities and states. Duh.

DrDeleon on January 18, 2016 at 2:36 PM

Indeed.
And because the people committing most of the crimes don’t bother with getting CC permits for their illegally obtained weapons even if the city / state allows them.

Something that might be in play here with liberals, is the likelihood that many of them want to participate in the
“own a gun, carry a gun”, game too. While they won’t publicly admit it, I’m betting many of them are just as concerned about future safety trends as are many conservatives. There won’t likely be any significant data (yet) on political makeup of licensees, but I’m thinking that some of these guys are beginning to think that Libs need to be careful to not be too successful in the gun grab arena, lest they be on the wrong end of a barrel at some future date…

Skip2014 on January 18, 2016 at 6:24 PM

Interesting idea.

Don’t fall for it. If multiple NYT columnists are spouting it then it is a coordinated effort likely from Media Matters. The secret of what it is can be found in Kristoff’s piece. “Rebrand their efforts as Gun Safety”. Yeah just as they moved to rebrand “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”. They are seemingly giving ground simply to pull their normal deceptive and serpentine language tricks and redefine words and terms to come at it from another angle. It’s more Progressive Bullshit, nothing more. Alinsky in action yet again.

patches on January 18, 2016 at 3:52 PM

It’s a losing issue for Ds at the ballot box. The columnists just want them to stop losing elections.

InterestedObserver on January 18, 2016 at 3:55 PM

Not unlikely.

AesopFan on January 19, 2016 at 12:14 AM

Tom Maguire wonders whether Blow has been kidnapped

Not kidnapped, but forced to come face to face with all those ‘deranged’ gun owners by his brother, who as it turns out is a gun collector and took Charles to a gun show in San Antonio last month.

He wrote a column about it in the Times before he wrote this second column. It’s harder to demonize your enemy when you enemy then also has to include a member of your own family.

jon1979 on January 18, 2016 at 3:02 PM
Not for a liberal it isn’t.

oscarwilde on January 18, 2016 at 3:04 PM

However, in this case, Charles’ brother is the one with the gun collection.

jon1979 on January 18, 2016 at 3:42 PM

jon’s reply makes no sense vis-a-vis OW’s observation; partisans (left or right) will demonize family along with friends, acquaintances, and total strangers if their ideology requires it.
Look at all the stories we have seen about people being unfriended on Facebook for just differing (gently and rationally, not even passionately and obscenely) on SSM, abortion, and who they are voting for.

AesopFan on January 19, 2016 at 12:18 AM

These dadgum murdercrats will even lie to themselves, and they are lying to you. “Trust us, we won’t disarm you. (At least not right at election time.)”

S. D. on January 19, 2016 at 1:11 AM

Kristof does a pretty good job of explaining how progressives get the facts wrong,

And then gets his own wrong. The bit about aggravated assaults doesn’t add up, based on what was posted in the other thread.

many on the Left are relearning the lesson from the 1990s about pushing gun control during an election year all over again

FIFY, Ed. They haven’t learned their lesson so much as they’ve figured out it isn’t an election winner.

GWB on January 19, 2016 at 9:48 AM

based on what was posted in the other thread.

GWB on January 19, 2016 at 9:48 AM

Oh! I didn’t read the comments before commenting. FX Muldoon posted the info here, too.

GWB on January 19, 2016 at 9:50 AM

AND, just two weeks ago, DeBlasio announced establishiment of a SPECIAL COURT (in Brooklyn) to handle gun POSSESSION cases. This addresses the glaring loophole where Public Defenders routinely Plea-Bargain gun charges off the list of charges before the defendant ever gets to trial.

OCULUS on January 19, 2016 at 10:41 AM

The bigger picture here is that even the liberal commentariat is recognizing that the Left’s gun-control arguments are irrational, uninformed, and irrelevant to the issue of gun violence. They both undermine the Left’s intellectual pretensions in the debate. – Ed Morrissey

The Left doesn’t use rational or intellectual arguments, they use emotional arguments and lies that suit their purpose because they know their gruber supporters are too stupid to check facts.

earlgrey on January 19, 2016 at 2:33 PM