Anti-Gun New York Times Lies About Missouri Constitutional Carry Law


The anti-gun New York Times lies constantly about guns, and slanders gun-rights advocates. This didn’t change with the passing of the new Missouri constitutional carry law. They took this as an opportunity to, once again, butcher the truth in an article trashing Republican Missouri lawmakers. The article was provocatively titled, “Missouri: The Shoot-Me State,” a play on the state motto.

The piece was filled with half-truths, debunked myths, and inaccurate representations of the parties involved. So basically, it was a run of the mill New York Times hit piece.

Here were the eight egregious things I found in their article:

They referred to the “stand your ground” law as dangerous, especially to minority communities.

A “stand your ground” law basically says that you don’t have a duty to retreat, before defending yourself with deadly force, if you believe your life is in eminent danger. Without such a law, the question of, “To what extent must I retreat,” is very complicated, and can easily bend in the favor of a rapist or murderer. Of course, the New York Times says this law is dangerous, but doesn’t give a reason for why they believe it’s dangerous. I have to wonder, who do they think it’s dangerous for? A possible rape victim that shoots a man before first trying to flee?

Concerning minority groups being disproportionately affected, the New York Times points to claims by Everytown for Gun Safety. But this group of anti-gun activists, didn’t seem to care about the thousands, year-after-year, that got murdered in Chicago in the Inner City. They only decided to create this group after a bunch of white kids were tragically slaughtered at a school protected by gun-free zone signs. Also, this narrative is completely false. Stand your ground laws benefit blacks in high crime areas, more than whites.

They try to connect the Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin case to the “stand your ground” law.

The Zimmerman case was not about the stand-your-ground law. This is another lie that has been debunked overand overand over. Now, they did put an editorial note at the bottom correcting their error in pointing to the “stand your ground” law. Even so, isn’t it a little ridiculous that an article with authorship attributed to “The Editorial Board” couldn’t summon the resources to make sure that they got that obvious detail correct the first time?

I’m a random blogger, with very limited resources. I have not once had to make a correction to any of my pieces. Yet, we’re supposed to believe the New York Times just made an error concerning this easily debunked detail, despite their extensive resources and possibly multiple authors.

They use the phrase “gun safety,” instead of the correct phrase, “gun control.”

Gun-Control is not the same as Gun Safety, New York Times

Gun safety is not what the New York Times advocates for. Changing the language does not change what they’re trying to do. The New York Times is pro-gun control, period. They’re not pro-gun safety. They want to remove guns from the hands of all the pee-ons that can’t afford bodyguards, like they have at their headquarters. If they were pro-gun safety they’d celebrate the NRA offering courses in gun safety, not misrepresent them as this big, mean, boogeyman lobbying group.

They failed to point out that Everytown for Gun Safety is a lobby backed by big money, unlike the mostly member-funded NRA.

They’re right about Everytown being just “one of the groups” fighting the gun lobby, because there are many. There’s also The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Violence Policy Center, and almost every media outlet (including the New York Times) and Hollywood celebrity. Also, let’s talk about who’s funding Everytown for Gun Safety, and who’s funding “the gun lobby” (aka the NRA).

Everytown for Gun Safety’s co-chair is Michael Bloomberg, whom Forbes estimates to be worth $50 Billion (that’s billion with a “B”). On the other hand, the NRA is mainly backed by individual small donations from millions of Americans who are members. Therefore, Everytown for Gun Safety is a group of elitists trying to impose their will on the people, while the NRA is a large, massive group of members (up to 5 million), attempting to stop those very elitist from infringing on their constitutional rights. In other words, we (gun-toting Americans) are the gun lobby, so Everytown for Gun Safety is fighting us, not some unnamed boogeyman!

They only provided two links, while making an exorbitant amount of inaccurate claims.

The only two links in this entire piece were one pointing to an article about how America is still a racist country (because Trayvon Martin), and another pointing to an article titled “Donald Trump Courts the Gun Zealots.” Great sourcing, New York Times! Although, I guess in order to provide sources, they would’ve actually had to do some research, which they obviously didn’t care to do.

They propagated the often debunked gun-show and internet loophole arguments.

These idiots are still claiming that firearm purchasers, who buy guns via the internet, don’t have to go through background checks. This is a lie that’s been propagated for years, and one that has been debunked many times. Concerning gun shows, the vast majority of the purchasers at these events buy from gun dealers, therefore, they must undergo background checks. The only people at gun shows that do not have to undergo background checks are the ones buying from an individual, which makes up an insignificant minority of sales at gun-shows.

They attributed legitimacy to the false claim that assault weapons are the choice weapon of mass shooters.

“Assault weapons” haven’t been used in a mass shooting in probably the last 60 plus years. If they have been used, it’s been limited to maybe one or two cases. This is because what are commonly referred to as “assault weapons” are not actually assault weapons. Assault weapons are fully automatic weapons like an M4, not semi-automatic weapons like an AR-15. By the way, those scary AR15’s function just like a semi-automatic “hunting rifles,” and can fire just as many rounds, just as fast, that are just as lethal (check out this article I recently wrote, in which I’ve linked numerous sources to prove the above claims).

Now that we’ve clarified all that, handguns are actually used in more mass shootings than semi-automatic AR-15 style rifles. That’s a verifiable fact. I’m not sure why they even brought AR-15’s into the discussion. What the heck do these rifles have to do with the Missouri constitutional carry law?

They try to show Hillary’s support of radical anti-gun legislation as rational.

Should we hold a knife maker accountable for stabbings? Of course not. So why the hell would the New York Times find it reasonable that Hilary wants to hold gun manufacturers accountable for the acts of criminals. Also, denying guns to people on the no-fly list is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, but also a violation of due process. And considering the no-fly list would consist of mostly Muslims, many that shouldn’t be on that no fly list, isn’t it slightly Islamophobic of them to think that we should take away the due process rights of these people?

I don’t buy for one second that the New York Times could have “The Editorial Board” work on a single article, and still come up with such an inaccurate display of crap. It couldn’t be clearer that these inaccurate claims and ridiculous assessments, without any evidence or sources, we’re intentionally deceptive.

The New York Times was not trying to provide news and opinion. All they were trying to do is spread blatantly false anti-gun narratives. In fact, this was probably one of the worst displays of unethical, biased journalism I’ve ever seen on the issue of gun-rights, and that’s saying a lot.