New Yorker editor blames guns for Boston Bombing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trent

Trent

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
25,151
Location
Illinois
I have the comment ready to counter it. But I might get an infraction. So we'll all just agree he is a complete moron. The bill wouldn't even have taken affect till after the bombing already took place. I hope people this dumb don't reproduce.
 
I'm not defending the guys comments but that article and this post are extremely misleading. He was speaking about their use of handguns after the bombing. He did not blame guns for the bombing of the marathon.
 
JustinJ said:
I'm not defending the guys comments but that article and this post are extremely misleading. He was speaking about their use of handguns after the bombing. He did not blame guns for the bombing of the marathon.
Click to expand...

Oh, I disagree.

There was very strict gun control already in place in Massachusetts, and they ignored it. (As we all know criminals who are willing to shoot cops will undoubtedly not want to break the law in obtaining the guns to shoot the cops with.)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/22/boston-bombing-suspects-did-not-have-valid-gun-lic/

From a related article:

Tamerlan, 26, who was killed in the shootout with police, would have been required to apply for a gun license where he lived in Cambridge, but there is no record of him having done so, according to Cambridge Police Department spokesman Dan Riviello.

“There is no record of him having a license to carry,” Mr. Riviello told Reuters.

Tsarnaev’s younger brother Dzhokhar, 19, who was captured alive Friday, would have been too young to get a handgun license.

Last week, the U.S. Senate rejected a bill to expand background checks. The development in the Tsarnaev case may add to the national debate regarding background checks for firearm purchases, which critics contend would be useless since criminals would never submit to such a check.
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine.

The national media MIGHT just be catching on to the cold, hard reality about criminals, and their willingness to obey laws..

People who will commit terrorism, mass murder, throw explosives at and shoot at police, just aren't going to bother with a permit.

I don't think the article was misleading at all.

And I still think the guy who said UBC would have any impact at all on the bombing, or aftermath, is living in some altered reality where logic doesn't apply.
 
The Washington Times reported Tuesday that neither Tamerlan nor Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had valid permits to own firearms and neither of the brothers had obtained the handguns legally, according to authorities.
Click to expand...

The Bold print says is all to me.
 
Also, of note.

While I agree with JustinJ in that the article title / opening paragraph is somewhat misleading, it DOES illustrate exactly how far the anti-gun community is reaching for arguments now.

I mean, they're positively reeling from their resounding defeat.

The only other news article I saw on major news outlets last night was one warning that Obama's push for gun-control organizations to lobby heavily in 2014 might cost him more than he could gain; even going so far as to suggest that it could backfire.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/22/3358644/obama-push-against-gun-rights.html

TLDR; Gun rights organizations are so motivated right now, that come 2014, a strong push on gun control may backfire and cost Democrats the Senate Majority.
 
Fixed the quote

Editor of The New Yorker and former Washington Post reporter David Remnick suggested Monday night that meaningful Senate Immigration and Border Security legislation would have made the Boston Marathon bombing “a hell of a lot more difficult to pull off.”
Click to expand...
Latest reports are that there was only one gun involved which means the majority of the 200+ rounds fired in the shootout came from gov guns. The poor campus cop was murdered for his gun but the retention holster foiled its theft.
I wonder what we are to do now that cops are targeted as a source for guns, I guess it's a product of a society like Mass that so limits guns to the public.:rolleyes:
 
Aren't there also reports that the serial number was removed from one of the guns that were recovered? And this guy suggests that a tougher background check would have slowed them down? Good lord. :rolleyes:
 
If only we all had tracking chips implanted in our heads and strict curfew, permits to attend events and mandatory 100 hour work weeks it would have been... “a hell of a lot more difficult to pull off.”
 
Whatever Remnick really meant to say or imply, it must be wrong because he said "effective gun control," which is an absurdity--a classic oxymoron.
 
Trent said:
Oh, I disagree.

There was very strict gun control already in place in Massachusetts, and they ignored it. (As we all know criminals who are willing to shoot cops will undoubtedly not want to break the law in obtaining the guns to shoot the cops with.)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/22/boston-bombing-suspects-did-not-have-valid-gun-lic/

From a related article:



Emphasis mine.

The national media MIGHT just be catching on to the cold, hard reality about criminals, and their willingness to obey laws..

People who will commit terrorism, mass murder, throw explosives at and shoot at police, just aren't going to bother with a permit.

I don't think the article was misleading at all.

And I still think the guy who said UBC would have any impact at all on the bombing, or aftermath, is living in some altered reality where logic doesn't apply.
Click to expand...
As are the Eintsteins who think taggants make sense.°
 
Oh, I disagree.

There was very strict gun control already in place in Massachusetts, and they ignored it. (As we all know criminals who are willing to shoot cops will undoubtedly not want to break the law in obtaining the guns to shoot the cops with.)
Click to expand...

I understand that but the editor was making the argument that the bill would have somehow prevented them from illegally acquiring said guns.

His actual comment, which i failed to see in the OP linked article, was:

REMNICK: -or Kabul or wherever. Where are they getting side arms from? Where are they getting, where are they getting pistols from? It's not, to me, and I don't want to politicize an act of terrorism, but it's, it is worth remarking upon, worth remarking upon, in that within a week's time a very, very, very weak gun control bill gets defeated, in effect defeated in the Senate, we see yet another act which might have been a Hell of a lot more difficult to pull off with effective gun control. Not for nothing."

It is absolutely obvious that he is reffering to their use of guns, not the bombing itself. Again, i'm not defending the guy but the article is willfully deceptive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SharpDog
  • Locked
Mandatory Gun Buybacks
2 3 4 5
Replies
103
Views
7K
GEM
G
P
  • Locked
N.Y. Times Editor-Reporter Dies After Attack in NW D.C.
Replies
12
Views
883
TonkinTwentyMil
T
N
  • Locked
Boston gun buybacks announced.
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
bromdenlong
B
F
  • Locked
Fox News Poll: Two Thirds Of American Gun Owners Would Defy A Federal Gun Ban
Replies
10
Views
829
PRM
PRM
D
  • Locked
No FN five seven's for Boston
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
Tory
T
Back
Top