The New York Times, the once-respected newspaper of record, posted a shockingly distasteful, dishonest, and ironically self-defeating editorial Monday titled “Shunning Gun Control, Helping Terrorists.” In the piece, The Times editorial board claimed President Trump’s desire to defend the Second Amendment and skepticism of the Left’s proposed anti-gun measures help radical Islamic terrorists.
The Times noted a pro-Second Amendment tweet of Trump’s, written following the latest Islamic terrorist attack in the United Kingdom. “Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now?” he tweeted at the time. “That’s because they used knives and a truck!”
“The president’s triumphal note completely overlooked the fact that Britain, unlike the United States, settled its gun debate emphatically decades ago in favor of civilian safety and tight controls,” claimed The Times, eager to disprove Trump’s assumption that no one could possibly use an Islamic terrorist attack perpetrated with knives and a vehicle to argue for gun control.
“The difference in the two nations’ gun homicides is stark. The gun death rate in America is 25 times higher than other high-income nations, like Britain,” wrote the editorial board. “In his obligation to protect the public, President Trump would do well to note that the nation’s loophole-ridden gun laws are hailed by the Islamic State as a pro-mayhem advantage.”
Tim Schmidt, president and founder of the United States Concealed Carry Association, called the Times’ implications “absolutely crazy.”
“There is no research that backs that up, and it’s proven by the fact that The New York Times has to cite a completely asinine statistic to make the case,” he told LifeZette. But the statistic is not just asinine — it is also false.
The study to which the editorial links clearly states that the gun homicide rate was 25 times higher than those of similar nations — in 2010. This makes sense considering that similar nations have far stricter gun laws. However, the study also states that the overall gun death rate was only 10 times higher, a remarkably low statistic considering the significantly higher abundance of firearms in the U.S., and that most of those deaths were suicides.
“It’s hard to take The New York Times seriously on gun control,” said John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, who noted that even European countries with strict anti-gun laws have been unable to protect themselves from radical Islamic terrorists with guns.
“You look at … all the mass public shootings that Europe has had — France already has those types of regulations [that President Obama wanted] on private transfers on guns … it didn’t stop their attack,” Lott told LifeZette.
“In one year, 2015, France had more deaths from mass public shootings … than the United States had in eight years during the Obama administration. They had a total of 532 casualties from mass public shootings in 2015,” said Lott. “Over the entire eight years of the Obama administration we had casualties from mass public shootings of 527.”
“So a country that’s less than one fifth of the population of the United States had more casualties in one year than the United States had in eight years,” Lott continued. “And France has a ban essentially on semi-automatic guns. The attacks that were done there were done with machine guns, automatic.”
Despite the facts, The Times’ editorial board would have its readers quake in fear over the fact that America’s lack of restrictions on private gun sales were “described in how-to detail in the propaganda magazine Rumiyah that ISIS publishes for potential terrorists.”
“There, readers are informed, entirely accurately, that in America identification requirements are virtually nonexistent for buying military-style weapons from private sellers online or at weekend gun shows where there is no federal jurisdiction,” it writes.
Of course, issues of Rumiyah have also extolled the benefits of knife and vehicular attacks — and The Times has yet to run a single op-ed or editorial calling for restrictions on either of those.
“It’s typical for The New York Times,” said Lott. “They don’t care … if they have anything right. They just care about whether it supports their political views or not.”