July 1, 2017 — The Lamestream Media Told You: The New York Times, in its unending legacy of anti-gun-rights editorials (June 1, 2017), is now praising a California gun law as “particularly important because it gives standing to concerned family members, not just the police, to seek a court ruling against possession of a gun by a violent abuser.” Violent abuser* includes an “annoying person.”
Citing numbers from (unidentified) Michael Bloomberg’s “gun-control” group, the paper claims of 156 mass shootings from 2009 to 2016, clearly an awful lot, 54% were traced to domestic violence, also a lot apparently. Support for the numbers, as usual is not provided, though Everytown for Gun Something gets plugged by name.
Doing the math shows 22 total events claimed per year, or 1 per month (54%), statistically insignificant. All unintentional death is of course tragic, a point on which everyone agrees, and which the Times makes repeatedly, sometimes several times in single sentences.
The Uninvited Ombudsman Notes However That:
Everything has a cost. For whatever expense goes into preventing the single monthly event the Times appears so concerned about, funds are unavailable to address, for example, the 100,000 annual deaths multiple sources continue to report occur from iatrogenic death — what the industry calls medical misadventure, or what the public calls doctor’s mistakes. (And don’t overlook nosocomial disabilities and death, maladies you catch in hospitals.)
The new California law would allow relatives and family members to disarm people by just asking a court to do so, without adequate representation for the person subject to the rights denial, in the hope the disarming would do more good than harm. Charging anyone for the 100,000 annual “mistake” deaths is virtually impossible. Californians are well known for their strained far-left anti-gun biases, where a good gun is no gun. Family members, under the new law, includes people you have dated, or ever stayed at your place.
California already enforces removal of Second Amendment rights for people charged, but not convicted of anything. If the Times was concerned with saving lives, and not disarming the public as critics claim their reporters stand in violation of their ethical oaths, it’s obvious the paper might have a different focus.
The Times accepts mountains of expensive drug company and other medical advertising. They take no advertising from the firearms industry. But I digress.
*What you must claim against people in California to have their guns and ammo confiscated (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 527.6): “…a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose…