NY Times is Starting to Get Worried About Reciprocal Concealed Carry Licenses

A vacuous opinion piece. I'm surprised the author didn't use the term "gat" or "packing heat"

Wasn't much of an article.

It is very sad that this is what passes for journalism these days.

Sadly, there are some people who will just never "get it". And we all know the Violence Policy Center is a "gun safety researcher". I will never be able to understand what kind of a Pollyanna world these idiots live in.

Sistema1927 said:

It is very sad that this is what passes for journalism these days.

Click to expand...

You had me at "very sad". ;-)

I wouldn't use the word "sad" in describing this sort of anti-CCW rhetoric; more like a "pathetic propaganda piece".

I like this qoute - "Gun safety researchers count more than 900 people killed by concealed-carry gun owners in the past decade, with only a tiny fraction of shootings ruled self-defense. Many of the deaths were suicides, and 31 were in mass shootings by concealed-carry owners." So let me get this straight. in the last 10 years concealed carry gun owners killed 900 people nationwide, most of these were suicides and only 31 were in mass shooting. That means out of the 30,000 gun deaths per year an average of 3.1 per year are from mass shootings that the left seems to be so focused on. That's like 1% of 1%.

So we should restrict everyone's rights because 1% of 1% of people are causing problems. No matter what laws are passed this small fraction of criminals will not follow the law.

Math has never been a strong suit for the left.

Sistema1927 said:

Math has never been a strong suit for the left.

Click to expand...

It's Common Core math.

I have read better and more accurate current event topics written by a 4th grader.

Sistema1927 said:

It is very sad that this is what passes for journalism these days.

Click to expand...

This is an editorial, not journalism.

Starting? NYT has been antigun for a century. The New York attitude on gun control is summed up in HL Mencken's 1924 editorial about the "Uplifters" crusading to impose the Sullivan Act nationwide. He thought it was like alcohol prohibition. NYT is biased toward the most restrictive gun control possible.

Carl N. Brown said:

Starting? NYT has been antigun for a century. The New York attitude on gun control is summed up in HL Mencken's 1924 editorial about the "Uplifters" crusading to impose the Sullivan Act nationwide. He thought it was like alcohol prohibition. NYT is biased toward the most restrictive gun control possible.

Click to expand...

You are 100% correct.

Add to that other metropolitan news rags, such as the Los Angeles Times. The publisher, editors, cartoonists, reporters, etc., have consistently called for the banning and confiscation of all the guns of the "worker peasants." The U.S. Constitution means no more to the people at the Los Angeles Times (or New York Times, et al.) than does a wristwatch to a pig.

Almost all mainstream media are biased to the far, far left when it comes to the Second Amendment. They believe the Second Amendment was placed there to make the United States nothing more than a military/police State.

L.W.

States recognize each other's driver's licenses, and driving is not a right.

Awww! Did ums get ums panties in a wad? Fug ums!

It is easy to manipulate the truth and still use accurate facts.

Many of the deaths were suicides, and 31 were in mass shootings by concealed-carry owners.

Click to expand...

Most, not many, of the 900 deaths were suicides. If someone has decided to commit suicide the lack of a gun won't stop them. Four years ago I helped carry a 68 year old woman out of the woods who decided to walk out into the woods and cut her wrists. She was unsuccessful and we found her in time. Six months later she stepped in front of a train. She didn't have a gun, but was eventually successful.

A mass shooting is defined as shooting more than 1 person. It doesn't separate justified shootings though. How many of those 31 shootings were good guys shooting multiple attackers, most if not all would be my guess. An important fact that was left out.

It is a known fact that people who carry guns legally tend to be the most responsible people, it is extremely rare for them to be involved in any illegal activity.

jmr40 said:

A mass shooting is defined as shooting more than 1 person.

Click to expand...

Actually, I believe a "mass shooting" is more than three.

Thanks for the biased info NY Times but I think I'll just continue to cling to my guns and religion.

I hope Trump can get it rammed through. At the same time, though, I hope it doesn't turn into yet another federal money making scheme, or an excuse for the federal government to start dictating to states regarding training and background requirements. What we really need is national constitutional carry, especially since it's already guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.

I read somewhere else that one of the foaming at the mouth antis was claiming this would allow blind people to carry concealed. Hey, if they can see to fill out the 4473, good enough for me!

Not to worry. Some California judge will somehow put a stop to this.

grampajack said:

I hope Trump can get it rammed through. At the same time, though, I hope it doesn't turn into yet another federal money making scheme, or an excuse for the federal government to start dictating to states regarding training and background requirements. What we really need is national constitutional carry, especially since it's already guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.

Click to expand...

I hope Trump reads this.

Larry
Northern Minnesota USA

Not to worry. Some California judge will somehow put a stop to this.

Click to expand...

That is REALLY starting to get old, isn't it?