QUESTION: Does Trump ‘HELP TERRORISTS’ By Not Talking Gun Control After London KNIFE Attacks?
The Times isn’t even trying to be objective anymore. Now they can take any issue, and leverage it into criticism of Trump.
After the London attack, Trump pointed out the obvious:
Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That's because they used knives and a truck!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 4, 2017
Their sacred cow having been poked at, the Times rushed to its defense.
The president’s triumphal note completely overlooked the fact that Britain, unlike the United States, settled its gun debate emphatically decades ago in favor of civilian safety and tight controls.
…As the candidate of the National Rifle Association, however, Mr. Trump obviously prefers to discourage any debate in this country about the lethal role played by easily obtainable guns in the terrorist threat that preoccupies him.
…In his obligation to protect the public, President Trump would do well to note that the nation’s loophole-ridden gun laws are hailed by the Islamic State as a pro-mayhem advantage. They are described in how-to detail in the propaganda magazine Rumiyah that ISIS publishes for potential terrorists.
There, readers are informed, entirely accurately, that in America identification requirements are virtually nonexistent for buying military-style weapons from private sellers online or at weekend gun shows where there is no federal jurisdiction. — read more
It only gets worse from there. Including the tired and disproven ‘gun show loophole’.
What was his point, in that particular tweet, exactly…? To promote gun ownership?
Nope, but why should we expect anyone from the New York Times to be either intelligent or intellectually honest enough to realize that.
The Times just made Trump’s point for him.
What does the flowchart look like when there’s an attack?
Was the weapon involved a gun? If Yes — make the story about gun regulation and safety.
If no — downplay any aspects of race, religion or nation of origin in favor of a nebulous and generic ‘radicalization’. Emphasize hardships and poverty when possible.
If they were paying attention, they may have noticed something significant. The LACK of gun ownership resulted in more deaths. They waited 8 minutes until armed cops arrived. More victims were attacked in the meantime.
Even British cops are talking about the positive role of gun ownership in rural areas, where police take longer to respond. Why?
Because they work. And they work at a distance.
You would think that the Times would recognize that guns can empower the powerless, and can make a 95-pound grandmother bold as a lion in the face of several armed men.
Nope. They would rather that only thugs have guns.
Becuase that strategy is working OH so well in Chicago. Last we checked, Chicago — with its tough gun laws — had more murders than LA and NY combined.
See for yourself on a website dedicated to Chicago’s gun crime stats.
Meanwhile in Switzerland, there is NOT a problem with Terrorism. Can you guess why? They have nearly universal gun ownership.
If the Times actually CARED about facts, that alone would destroy their theory. But they don’t. And neither do their remaining faithful readers.
So the old ‘Grey Lady’ will continue getting old and grey until the day she wakes up and wonders why she’s alone in a third story walk-up with one too many cats.
And the rest of us won’t even notice her absence.
Gun control isn’t making the UK safer. On the contrary. Their defenselessness is making even mundane weapons more lethal.
