Did someone say the New York Times was a newspaper of high standing ? Well ever since their discredited quote during the oil shortage back in 1979, I've withheld that opinion of them. Looks like the times have not been a-changing for the Times, since they are still printing less than frank and/or truthful stuff.
Their latest flub is an article by Elisabeth Rosenthal which claims, as the title of her article put it, “More Guns = More Killing. And on what did Ms. Rosenthal base this bold assertion ? On anecdotal observations bald assertions of hers with absolutely no independent fact-checking by the "high-standing" Times.
This very loose proclamation in Rosenthal’s column proclaimed that armed guards do not reduce crime because: “I recently visited some Latin American countries … where guards with guns grace every office lobby, storefront, ATM, restaurant and gas station. It has not made those countries safer or saner.”
As Ann Coulter put it >> "
"So there you have it: The cock crowed, then the sun came up. Therefore, the cock’s crowing caused the sun to come up. Rosenthal went to Harvard Medical School.
Here’s a tip: High-crime areas are often bristling with bulletproof glass, heavy-duty locks, gated windows and armed guards. The bulletproof glass doesn’t cause the crime; it’s a response to crime. On Rosenthal’s logic, hospitals kill people because more people die in hospitals than outside of them."
A comparison of gun crime after 1997 in Australia (guns banned) and New Zealand (heavily armed) shows no difference in gun crime. Why didn't the New York Times report that ? Or the only real academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period performed by renowned economists at the University of Chicago and Yale, William Landes and John Lott. It concluded that the only policy to reduce the incidence of, and casualties from, mass shootings are concealed-carry laws.
Their latest flub is an article by Elisabeth Rosenthal which claims, as the title of her article put it, “More Guns = More Killing. And on what did Ms. Rosenthal base this bold assertion ? On anecdotal observations bald assertions of hers with absolutely no independent fact-checking by the "high-standing" Times.
This very loose proclamation in Rosenthal’s column proclaimed that armed guards do not reduce crime because: “I recently visited some Latin American countries … where guards with guns grace every office lobby, storefront, ATM, restaurant and gas station. It has not made those countries safer or saner.”
As Ann Coulter put it >> "
"So there you have it: The cock crowed, then the sun came up. Therefore, the cock’s crowing caused the sun to come up. Rosenthal went to Harvard Medical School.
Here’s a tip: High-crime areas are often bristling with bulletproof glass, heavy-duty locks, gated windows and armed guards. The bulletproof glass doesn’t cause the crime; it’s a response to crime. On Rosenthal’s logic, hospitals kill people because more people die in hospitals than outside of them."
A comparison of gun crime after 1997 in Australia (guns banned) and New Zealand (heavily armed) shows no difference in gun crime. Why didn't the New York Times report that ? Or the only real academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period performed by renowned economists at the University of Chicago and Yale, William Landes and John Lott. It concluded that the only policy to reduce the incidence of, and casualties from, mass shootings are concealed-carry laws.
Last edited:
d) all the above 
