99 comments

New York Times readers are a funny bunch.

"WE DON"T NEED GUNS!  ANYONE WHO OWNS A GUN IS A BAD PERSON!"


That's the upshot of Reader Comments in a recent NYT article which begins with the question:
"Will a gun retailer get away with negligence?"

(An alternative title might be: " Gun Control and the New York Times Mindset".)

Thanks to David Codrea, I just spent an interesting evening reviewing an August 28, 2014, article on Gun Control in the New York Times.  The link is provided below.

The author's presumptions were 90% lucid, until the last paragraph of the article.

The comments were ... illuminating.



Background:
Let's look at the article: there will be a test at the end of the class, so take notes.

The primary thesis is:

Will a Gun Retailer Get Away With Negligence? - NYTimes.com:

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the law firm Arnold and Porter recently filed a lawsuit in New York against Gander Mountain, the gun retailer in Rochester that sold the weapons to Ms. Nguyen. Brought on behalf of the shooting victims and their families, the suit asserts that Gander Mountain knew or should have known that Ms. Nguyen was a straw purchaser and, accordingly, refused to make the sale. Its failure to do so, the suit says, makes it accountable for the consequences; the suit seeks reform in Gander Mountain’s company polices and compensation for the plaintiffs.

A man and a woman go into a gun store, and the woman buys two guns, described as "Assault Rifles".  (I know, I know .. it's the NYT and if it's black and scary looking it's an "Assault Rifle".)

Then the woman gives the guns to the man, who later uses them to kill firefighters at a residence; a fire which the man -- a convicted felon -- presumably set for the sole purpose of ambushing and killing people.

The gun store clerk who sold HER the rifles is being 'examined' to determine whether he should be prosecuted, and the store (GANDER MOUNTAIN) is being sued by The Brady Bunch 'in the name of the families of the victims".

THESIS:

The NYT writer concludes her article with this one dubious paragraph:

One thing is already clear. Firearms dealers are gatekeepers to prevent criminals from acquiring guns. In this case, Gander Mountain did not perform its gatekeeper function.  Dawn Nguyen is being held responsible for her role. Will Gander Mountain be held responsible for its part as well?

ANTITHESIS:

"Gatekeeper"?

Since when did a retail store become a "Gatekeeper" of public morality?

Sporting goods stores will not knowingly sell firearms to 'straw purchasers', by law.   Liquor stores are required to perform the same function when selling alcoholic beverages if they think the purchasers intent is to deliver said product to minors.

But of course, neither business is able to hire mind-readers, so they do the best they can by training their "sales representatives" to be aware of obvious telltales.  The keyword here is "OBVIOUS".

The readers of the New York Times, however, assume that people who work in gun stores are required to have exemplary, even uncanny, ability to detect "Straw Purchasers" ... even though these same private citizens cannot detect bovine fecal matter in their own private discussion.  Perhaps that is because they are so often the purveyors of bullshit.

(If the link is valid, here is where you can view the comments over that past.)

A limited selection of the exchanges in the comments:

LLLLL

 New York 11 days ago

This man murdered his grandmother with a hammer and in a few years was back on the street. Maybe if the media devoted as much time on how easily killers get back into society instead of targeting a retail store for selling its products we can accomplish something useful.

TTT TTTTT

 NYC 9 days ago

Bad people like you are partly responsible for making this country far more dangerous than any other civilized country in the world. Yes, you LLLLL. So don't get all high and mighty. You're a bad person.

AND:

XXXXX XXXXXX

 Denver 13 days ago

Let's be perfectly clear: the nra is not about the right to bear arms, or any other individual's right, it is about the right of the gun makers to make as much money as possible. Maybe they suspect that someday, counter to all prevailing indications, the American people will wake up, come to their senses, and put sensible restrictions on the sale and ownership of the death dealing products they manufacture, so they must make as many as possible in the mean time.
In the meantime, America is collectively committing suicide, literally and figuratively.

AND:

All this quibbling ignores the fundamental problem with burgeoning gun sales of ever more lethal weapons. That is, that the gun owner's right trumps any victim's right not to be shot.
This is sickening.
In addition, the distortions about removing all gun rights which result in ever increasing sales of wildly over the top weapons are culpable in creating an atmosphere of distrust and hatred.
People may have forgotten the escalating efforts to kill our current president as well. Is that a government right?
I think Congress should allow guns in their house, as long as they think guns are OK everywhere else (bars, national parks, churches, etc. etc.)

This last point ... "guns are OK everywhere" ... received a friendly reception from the person at whom it was aimed.   While it was obviously presented as satirical, the anti-2nd Amendment commenter very nicely summarized the world view of 2nd Amendment supporters.

To summarize: Yes!   We think that everywhere that a policeman should be allowed to defend himself, so should private citizens.

That point was either lost in the dialogue, or else ignored.

DISCUSSION:

When Second Amendment Rights are compared in both the pro and the con perspective, it's clear that the discussion varies from emotion to reason, with the radical left relying on emotion to make their case.

That they have strong feelings about this issue.  They have moral issues which might be summarized as "You want to do something that we don't want you to do ... "  (possess firearms and carry them), and that they feel threatened by the prospect; and that they feel 'dis-empowered', as well they should.

And yet at the same time, they denigrate the Pro-2nd Amendment supporters ... who they typify as being fearful:

Let's be perfectly clear: the nra is not about the right to bear arms, or any other individual's right, it is about the right of the gun makers to make as much money as possible. Maybe they suspect that someday, counter to all prevailing indications, the American people will wake up, come to their senses, and put sensible restrictions on the sale and ownership of the death dealing products they manufacture, so they must make as many as possible in the mean time.

(Reciting the mantra.)

NRA members are fearful these Metros think, that someone will someday come take away their guns ... which is insinuated as paranoia.

At the same time, these NYT readers are very clear in their opinion that the world would be an idyllic place if only all the firearms were to magically disappear.   Which, of course, they don't want to do because that would only reinforce the paranoia of the gun nuts.

But they want it so badly that they are panting in expectation of That Beautiful Day when all violence will disappear forever.

They never seem to wonder what the world would be like if Bad People knew that they could tyranize New York Times Readers because the sole instrument which protects the weak against the strong were no longer part of the formula.

SUMMARY:

NY Times readers are ... interesting.  It's not every day when you get to watch Circular Reasoning and Cognitive Dissonance combined as a tool to reinforce a comforting ... if unrealistic ... world view.

DEFINITIONS:

Cognitive Dissonance --- holding two dissimilar convictions, and attempting to rationalize them.

For example:

I think that guns are bad, and I'm a good person, so I want you to not own guns.
But in telling you that I think you're a bad person I'll offend you, so I won't actually SAY I want to take your guns away.

Circular Reasoning --- is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

For example:

I'm a good person, so I don't want to tell you that you are bad for wanting to own guns.I don't want to tell you that I don't want you to own guns, so I won't, so I'm a good person.