New York Times at it again.


PDA






grahluk
July 6, 2008, 09:52 PM
Reading the NYT is like watching a horror or action movie with a particularly cliche'd plot. Article is on suicide. In some ways very interesting but as I read, long before the subject was mentioned I could tell the anti gun proselytizing was about to begin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?em&ex=1215489600&en=e0bc6c7ed292892f&ei=5087%0A

If you enjoyed reading about "New York Times at it again." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CDignition
July 6, 2008, 10:26 PM
They can say all they want....doesn't change the ruling..

no one reads that rag anyhow.. it will be gone in 5 years..

rdoggsilva
July 7, 2008, 01:33 AM
The NY times is a left wing rag, I do not even read it any more.

LightningJoe
July 7, 2008, 02:06 AM
NYT, one of the things we won't miss after the terrorists nuke Manhattan (which they will eventually).

denfoote
July 7, 2008, 03:34 AM
Yeah and the NYT is losing readers and are going to lay off people!!

http://www.observer.com/2007/times-announces-layoffs-enforcement-hiring-freeze

These leftist newspapers are so out of touch with America that they don't have the sense to jump off a sinking ship!!

The paper of record here in Arizona (The Arizona Republic) is losing something like 100 readers per day.
Their answer to the crisis: RAISE THE PRICE OF THE PAPER!!! :scrutiny:
I say stupid is as stupid does.
Let 'em sink!! :evil:

Robert Hairless
July 7, 2008, 03:47 AM
It is reasonable to believe that the increase in suicide might explain the decline in newspaper readership.

Although I have not studied the matter thoroughly enough to make a scientifically supported statement on the subject, it is of such vital importance that I would be irresponsible if I did not sound this clarion call to action.

It cannot be disputed that all suicides are people who have the ability to read. What they read therefore has great influence on their emotional state and mental stability. There can be no doubt that the influence of what they have read is detrimental to their survival: those poor people suffered to the point at which suicide became more desirable than continuing to read.

Although I believe firmly in the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of the Press, it is foolish to believe in it excessively or recklessly.

I therefore see no option except to call for an immediate ban on the publication of all newspapers.

Allow me to point out, by the way, that the framers of the Constitution could not possibly have had the New-York Times or any other modern newspaper in mind when they wrote the First Amendment.

I must point out further that the circulation of every modern newspaper is so small that not one of them could be considered "in common use." The New-York Times, for example, is read by only about 1.5 million people. And that is the second largest readership today.

Get rid of this scourge now.

John828
July 7, 2008, 07:49 AM
It is reasonable to believe that the increase in suicide might explain the decline in newspaper readership...

....Get rid of this scourge now.

Not to mention all the children swatted with a rolled up section of the paper.

Newspaper control advocates--UNITE!!! Think of our children!

SaxonPig
July 7, 2008, 09:35 AM
When newspapers start deriding the 2nd I tell them that we would be safer if there was no 1st Amendment.

They don't like it when THEIR ox gets gored.

jrou111
July 7, 2008, 09:53 AM
Not to mention all of those trees being murdered for the paper. ;)

burningsquirrels
July 7, 2008, 10:15 AM
NYT is a crock of crap. first, they hate american products. then, then hate guns. what's next, they hate american citizens?

Blackbeard
July 7, 2008, 10:24 AM
what's next, they hate american citizens?

Next?

Neo-Luddite
July 7, 2008, 10:55 AM
The story of 'Debbie', buying and attempting suicide with the .38, has the ususal 'she was able to just go buy a gun' angle.

The thing I notice is that, however sad the story is, that Debbie seems to have had no experience with firearms until she decided to end it all with one.

If the NYT likes to play fast-and-loose with stats, one I would LOVE to know is what the firearm suicide rate among adult female gun owners who are long-familiar with guns and experienced with them over time. My bet is that it is FAR smaller than the rate of 'new' female gun owners who seek a firearm out with which to do themselves in.

While I wpouldn't want to make light of the horrible experience of a tortured and troubled soul like Debbie, she is in two exceedlingly rare catagories;
1) Woman attempting suicide with a firearm
2) Those who survive suicide attempts with firearms

Of course, the message from NYT is that we must drive public policy with emotion and not logic or, dare I say, an eye toward personal liberty and resposibility.

LightningJoe
July 7, 2008, 11:04 AM
What's the suicide rate for people who get on the roofs of tall buildings?

cjanak
July 7, 2008, 04:15 PM
I don't think the article is anti-gun. The article states that many (not all) suicides are the result of impulsive behavior. Further, it states that guns are associated with higher successful suicide rates since a) using a gun doesn't require a lot of planning and b) guns are very lethal.

The article does not call for a ban on guns or even additional restrictions. Further, it doesnít focus entirely on guns. For example, the article mentions that railing height appeared to impact bridge suicides in DC and that the conversion from coal gas to natural gas in the UK greatly contributed to a decline in successful suicides in the UK. I didnít read the point to be that guns are bad, rather I took the point to be that making suicide even just a little more inconvenient to undertake can have a large impact on the number of successful suicides.

The article also mentions some simple things gun owners can do to reduce the risk of suicide occurring in their homes, including; locking your guns, keeping your guns unloaded, storing ammo separately from your guns, etc. These things supposedly delay impulsive suicides just enough to have a big impact on the likelihood that are ultimately carried out.

In contrast, I think this Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR2008070602118.html?hpid=topnews) has a more apparent anti-gun tone. The gist is that owning a gun brings more danger into your house than it reduces, since you or your family members are more likely to commit suicide with a gun than to defend yourselves with one. While this is certainly an important consideration for a responsible gun owner, I think there are some difficult statistical issues that need to be resolved in order for one to properly support such a claim. Megan McCardle tackles some of these here (http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/gun_statistics.php).

cjanak
July 7, 2008, 04:17 PM
Sorry, accidental duplicate post.

Rachen
July 7, 2008, 04:20 PM
I actually like the NY Times. The papers made a really good floor protector when I was repainting my living room.:neener:

The Times is just an example of corporate elitism. They don't care about human rights, or ANY rights for that matter. They only care about money, and NYT is just another player in the heartless game of billion-dollar corporatism.

SoCalShooter
July 7, 2008, 04:22 PM
So apparently now the new ruling is going to cause suicides? Wow that was really a silly article.

As for the suicide its the same with murder if you want to do it there are many ways to make it happen, some are just more quicker than others and people will always fine a way to make it happen.

If you enjoyed reading about "New York Times at it again." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!