Not to pick unduly on The New York Times, but its editorial of 11 January, referring to “the visceral evidence that the groups have made the country a far more dangerous place,” is beneath the dignity of a great newspaper. What, pray, is visceral evidence, and how does it trump actual evidence that the country is a far less dangerous place? Ditto Bob Herbert, who seems to have phoned in his column of the same day — “A Flood Tide of Murder,” from 1989 . . .
If we were serious about reducing killings, he writes, “we’d have to radically restrict the availability of guns” among other things. Well, we have reduced killings by a great deal, somehow by doing the exact opposite. Again, one doesn’t have make a causal argument, but to say that “no amount of killing has prompted any remedial action” is simply a calumny. Lots of remedial action has been taken, and it’s worked. It just hasn’t involved radically restricting the availability of guns.
[Dan Baum is a respected author and TTAG commentator. Please visit his website www.ourgunthing.com so that we can convince him to cross-post here regularly.]
Criticizing the Gray Lady? Such a shonda. Dan, don’t take this personally, but I’m beginning to like you.
+1
At the risk of invoking Rush Limbaugh, “Ditto.”
Dan, I know you’re a respected author and all, but that use of “calumny” doesn’t seem quite right. Just an observation.
I’m sure you’ll get lots of support in criticizing the NYT around here. I happen to like what they have to say about guns.
Shouldn’t that be “for” criticizing?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calumny?show=0&t=1294862096
plural cal·um·nies
Definition of CALUMNY
1
: a misrepresentation intended to harm another’s reputation
2
: the act of uttering false charges or misrepresentations maliciously calculated to harm another’s reputation
I guess it should have been calumnies?
I don’t buy it guys. Are you into defensive mode?
He said, “to say that “no amount of killing has prompted any remedial action” is simply a calumny.”
In saying such a thing, the intention was to harm whom exactly?
Instead of the 50-cent word, Dan should have simply said “false.”
Herbert has been phoning it in for so long, how can you tell any more?
Comments are closed.