Follow @ra7s
Speaking Truth to Their Lies: Dissecting The Latest NY Times Rant Against Guns

Posted by Bob Owens on December 11, 2015 at 12:38 pm

The most infamous foreign-controlled newspaper in the United States, the New York Times, has produced yet another ignorance-filled rant again the natural right of human beings to bear arms for their defense.

Let's get right into it.

The editors of the Times are, from a completely objective viewpoint, historically illiterate.

From before this nation's founding, citizens have had firearms that were technologically superior to those of the military in terms of quality, range, rate of fire, lethality, and accuracy.

The "long rifles" of colonial times had more than twice the range of contemporary muskets. On the frontier, citizens had Spencer, Henry, and Winchester repeating rifles when the Army was still carrying single-shot Springfields. When Teddy Roosevelt took the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry-a privately raised militia given official sanction-to Cuba, he carried with him a pair of M1895 Colt-Browning machine guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition purchased on Madison Avenue by several wealthy New York socialites who were on their way to tea.

Citizens have had commercial access to semi-automatic (which means self-loading, one shot per trigger pull) firearms since the early 1900s... over 100 years ago.

The AR-15 that the Times despises has been sold to civilians for 52 years, and was a sportsman's rifle for six years before its selective-fire military cousin, the M16A1, was adopted as the general issue rifle of the U.S. Army.


From shotguns to handguns to rifles, 300+ years of American history make it clear that civilian firearms have been re-purposed to military uses, not the other way around. I have contacts at the National Firearms Museum, and could likely arrange a tour to help cure the Times editors of their ignorance.

I promise... education doesn't hurt.

Let's dispense with the progressive self-delusion that gun ownership is declining, a "fact" that is self-evidently false. The source for this absurd claim are a handful of surveys, while simultaneously dismissing other surveys that directly contradict those they favor, and the tons of widely available and irrefutable facts.

Gun ownership is not only increasing, but it is increasing dramatically across all social boundaries. Young, urban and female shooters are the fastest areas of growth as "Gun Culture 2.0." We've done and entire series of posts debunking this idiocy. We suggest, once again, that the Times editors remove themselves from their ideological fantasyland and learn to deal with facts instead of dogma.

Their ignorant hyperbole about firearms has previously be dealt with, so let us move on to their next editorial excretion.

Many firearms experts-people whom the editors of the Times would not know-regard the AR-15 so reviled by the Times as the premier self-defense firearm for home use. It gives the homeowner a firearm that is easier to aim accurately in high-stress situations than a pistol, with less recoil than a shotgun, with a higher ammunition capacity to handle multiple threats, while firing (in its most popular 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington chambering) a 55-grain bullet that simultaneously has greater effect on bad guys than common pistol rounds (meaning that home owners will not need to fire as many shots), while also being designed to fracture at the cannelure, so that it penetrates the same or less than buckshot and many pistol bullets. Put bluntly, it is an excellent tool for self-defense, and as FBI data shows us, they are used in a decreasing number of violent crimes ever year, even as the number of AR-15s in the citizenry expands by several thousand every singe day, with more than 8 million currently in the hands of American citizens.

The number of all rifles used in homicides is declining every year, and the semi-automatic 
rifles hated by the times are just a subset of that overall total.
The number of all rifles used in homicides is declining every year, and the semi-automatic rifles hated by the times are just a subset of that overall total.

This is just fantasy. There's no way to debunk this pure, fact-free expression of abject hysteria. The 1994 bill was a ban on several firearms by name, and on cosmetic features on others. It has as much effect on crime as banning a given shade of lipstick (to put it in terms Times editors might understand).

It had no practical effect on the sale, manufacture, or possession of common firearms.

Here are a pair of Colt Ar-15s. Can you spot the difference?

A pair of Colt AR-15s, from
A pair of Colt AR-15s, from

Both rifles fire the exact same ammunition, from the exact same magazines, at the exact same rate of fire, with the same accuracy and range. The only difference between the top gun (a Colt MT6400 manufactured and sold throughout the ten-year life of the so-called "ban") and the bottom rifle (a Colt SP 6920 sold on both sides of the "ban") is that the bottom has a muzzle device called a flash hider, and a bayonet lug, a tiny nub of metal extending from the bottom of the front sight post. Both guns function exactly the same.

Likewise, standard-capacity magazines were readily and legally available from retailers throughout the life of the so-called "ban." The "ban" existed on paper and in fantasy, not in real life.

The Times is correct that an 18-year old can indeed buy a .50 BMG rifle... if they have a massive budget. A "cheap" AR-50A1 that is more than 5 feet long and weighs in excess of 35 pounds when equipped with a scope and bipod is $3,800... and that doesn't include sights or a bipod, which will set you back several thousand dollars more.

Profile shot of a bolt-action .50 BMG rifle, from
Profile of a bolt-action .50 BMG rifle, from

A "ready to shoot" Barrett .50 BMG-chambered rifle favored in video games can be yours for a mere $18,000, after a mandatory FBI NICS background check which is the law for all new firearms, regardless of where they're sold.

By the way, .50 BMG rifles have never been used to commit a homicide in the entire history of the United States.

.50 BMG rifles cannot pierce concrete bunkers nor penetrate military armored vehicles, which is why "anti-tank rifles" ceased to be during the opening days of the Second World War.

The Times is, one again, simply making things up as they go along.

The Times relies upon mis-characterized descriptions provided by the Violence Policy Center, a radical propaganda organization dedicated to the disarmament of the American people. The VPC refers to American citizens who believe in the purpose of the Second Amendment as "insurrectionists" and routinely and publicly hopes for government violence against citizens who own guns. This violence-loving organization encourages the practice of SWATting, hoping to goad police into shooting innocent American citizens lawfully carrying guns.

There is something to be said about the company you keep...

The "state commission" formed in Connecticut after Sandy Hook was tellingly composed of only anti-gun Democrats. It excluded actual firearms experts, even though the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearms industry trade association, is based in Newtown. It is hardly surprising that a hand-selected band of political cronies would reach pre-determined findings when they excluded actual experts and shaped a pure propaganda report to confirm their own biases.

There are eight million AR-15s in the United States, and thousands more are sold every day. They are the "modern musket" preferred by the American people, and are the single most popular centerfire rifle sold year in and year out in the United States. Despite their popularity, they are so rarely used in crime that the Federal Bureau of Investigation doesn't track them in their own category. They are lumped under other rifles, which, when added together, accounted for just 254 criminal homicides last year in a nation with a current population of 326,283,000, and counting.

We do not have a gun problem in the United States. All criminal violence, including violence with firearms, is on a dramatic multi-decade decline of 49-percent since 1993.

What we have is a lying media problem, and the editorial board of the New York Times is one of the main purveyors of these lies.

New poll blows the lid off Obama's lies
Do you support President Barack Obama ' s gun registration plan? Are you on board with anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg and the national gun ban lobby ' s agenda? Incredibly,
Promoted by NRA-ILA
Bob Owens Author: Bob Owens Bob Owens is the Editor of He is an alumnus of Gunsite Academy, is an instructor with Project Appleseed, and is the author of the short e-book, So You Want to Own a Gun. He can be found on Twitter at bob_owens.