In a self-righteously overwrought article that blames
liberals for the lack of gun control laws, New
York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof either makes a classic rhetorical
mistake or employs a reliable propaganda trick: stating that just because two
things happened at the same time, one caused the other. In algebraic terms, the
flaw unfolds thusly: A is true, B is true, therefore A caused B.
In “Some
Inconvenient Facts for Liberals,” Kristof points out that since 1993, gun
homicides have dropped by 50% while gun ownership has increased by 50%. Kristof
wants us to believe that the increase in the number of guns in circulation led
to a decrease in gun homicides.
But
he’s wrong, and he may know it. Note that
Kristof refers only to gun homicides: all gun deaths and injuries are up over
the past 20 years, whereas all homicides are down, not just gun homicides. Two
years ago, Oliver Roeder, Lauren-Brooke Eisen and Julia Bowling of the Brennan
Center for Justice at New York University Law School, released What
Caused the Crime Decline?, which
analyzed all of the possible factors leading to a decline in the crime rate
using the most complete reports and advanced computer modeling techniques.
Among other interesting revelations, the trio found that enactment of looser
gun laws had absolutely no effect on the crime rate. Also note that statistics
from around the world demonstrate that when private gun ownership increases, so
do homicides, deaths and injuries from guns.
Instead of citing a statistic out of context as
Kristof does, if we look at the totality of available evidence, we must
conclude that if the number of guns had not increased in society gun homicides
would have declined even more than they did over the past 25 or so years.
Kristof wonders, at least rhetorically, why legislatures don’t pass
anti-gun legislation, when most Americans want stiffer gun laws, including 74%
of National Rifle Association (NRA) members. He answers his own question,
blaming liberals for antagonizing gun owners by coming across as “supercilious,
condescending and spectacularly uninformed about the guns they propose to legislature.”
His two examples of
being uninformed don’t prove anything: 1) He says the New York State
legislature was uninformed when it passed legislation banning gun magazines
holding more than seven bullets, when for most guns, the magazine always holds
more than seven bullets. All that proves is the legislators were covering all
bases. 2) He points out that assault
weapons accounted for only 2% of guns used in crimes and references without
citing a study that found that only 2% of all guns used in crimes were assault
weapons. Kristof wants us to draw the conclusion that the fuss about
reinstituting a ban on assault weapons is wasted effort and shows the ignorance
of liberals. The online edition of the Times
thankfully provides a link
to the study, by three University of Pennsylvania researchers. Titled, “An Updated Assessment of the
Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994,” the study states that assault weapons account for a
large share of police killings and public mass murders, again demonstrating
that liberals were not uninformed. Congress knew when it passed the temporary
ban on assault weapons in 1994 that it would reduce police and mass shootings,
and it did, for the ten years it was in effect.
As to the charge of superciliousness and
condescension, Kristof provides not one shred of evidence, not one quote, not
one attitudinal study, not one Internet word analysis. He’s just tarring liberals with some
unpleasant adjectives. His ad hominem attack on those who favor gun control
conveniently shifts that blame for our loose gun laws to the “supercilious”
liberals and away from the NRA and the multitude of politicians on the state
and federal level who pig out at its all-you-can-eat money trough.
Kristof declares that he is sympathetic with those
advocating tighter gun control laws. He writes that “Americans are absolutely
right to be outraged at the toll of guns.” He agrees we need to reduce the
carnage from guns, and proposes what he calls a new strategy, to take a “public
health approach.” Essentially he wants to stop talking about “gun control” and
start talking about “gun safety.” As if changing one word is going to
completely rebrand the gun control movement and make it more palatable to the
NRA, whose supporters—weapons manufacturers—depend on selling the myth that the
only way to be safe it to own a gun and carry it with you everywhere.
Kristof is a fool if he actually believes that if
“liberals” had presented the proposed ban on selling guns to suspected
terrorists as a “safety” measure instead of a “control” measure” the NRA would
have signaled their legislative factotums to vote “yes” or those factotums would
have felt secure enough in the desires of the electorate to defy the NRA. No
way.
Near the end of the article, Kristof calls for
universal background checks for anyone wanting to purchase a gun. Why he
supposes calling such a new law a “gun safety” measure will matter to the NRA
and legislators remains a mystery.
In short, Kristof’s column is nonsense, the sole
purpose of which is to blame liberals for something that is not their fault. The
mainstream news media seems to love these articles by centrists or
self-loathing liberals that fault liberals and progressives for their inability
to pursue their political agenda. Perhaps the self-loathing liberal motive
shows up so often media because the owners of mainstream news media tend to be
corporations and ultra-wealthy. Like Kristof’s, these
articles typically neglect the power of money, influence and control of the
news media to subvert the desires of the American people, not just when it
comes to gun control, but also on economic, educational, tax and healthcare policies.
No comments:
Post a Comment