Crime

The New York Times Uses a CDC Report on Homicides As an Excuse To Attack Private Gun Ownership

The paper blames a "gun-buying spree" during the pandemic for the 2020 jump in murders.

|

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) yesterday issued a report on the recent surge in the U.S. gun homicide rate, which rose by a third between 2019 and 2020, from 4.6 to 6.1 per 100,000 residents. The article, which was published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, notes that "several explanations have been proposed," including "increased stressors (e.g., economic, social, and psychological) and disruptions in health, social, and emergency services during the COVID-19 pandemic; strains in law enforcement-community relations reflected in protests over law enforcement use of lethal force; increases in firearm purchases; and intimate partner violence."

The New York Times predictably plays up that passing reference to "increases in firearm purchases." The rise in gun homicides, the Times says, "corresponded to accelerated sales of firearms as the pandemic spread and lockdowns became the norm." The Times explains that "Americans went on a gun-buying spree in 2020 that continued into 2021," although sales have since returned to their usual level. It cites an estimate by gun violence researcher Garen Wintemute that "there remain roughly 15 million more guns in circulation than there would be without the pandemic."

In 2017, according to the Small Arms Survey, American civilians owned more than 393 million firearms. Purchases in 2018 and 2019 added an estimated 27 million guns to that stock of weapons. If sales in 2020 had been similar to sales in the two previous years, they would have added another 13 million or so. Assuming Wintemute's estimate is in the right ballpark, the "gun-buying spree" that worries the Times amounted to a further increase of about 3.5 percent. Although Times reporters Roni Caryn Rabin and  seem to think that's a plausible explanation for a 33 percent increase in the gun homicide rate, it's not clear why.

It is demonstrably not true that more guns in circulation automatically results in more homicides. The number of guns owned by Americans rose steadily throughout the period, beginning in the early 1990s, when the U.S. homicide rate fell precipitously, a downward trend that has only recently abated. As the CDC notes, the reasons for the 2020 jump are unclear, although it is widely assumed that the massive disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic had something to do with it.

Is there any evidence that the Americans who bought those "extra" guns in 2020 and early 2021 were especially prone to violence? Since the numbers are based on FBI background checks for gun buyers, which exclude anyone with a felony record, that supposition seems dubious.

You could argue that the unusually large percentage of first-time gun buyers during the pandemic increased the risk of poor handling by inexperienced, untrained owners, which might have resulted in more accidents. But the CDC counted just 535 unintentional firearm deaths in 2020, up from 486 in 2019. It reports about 24,300 suicides committed with guns in 2020, compared to about 24,000 in 2019, and about 19,400 homicides, compared to about 14,400 in 2019. It's the increase in homicides that is striking, and that presumably is what the Times is trying to explain when it notes the "gun-buying spree" during the pandemic.

Maybe those neophyte gun owners were especially careless in storing their guns, which could have increased the risk of theft, boosting the supply available to criminals. But with more than 400 million firearms already in circulation, the impact would have been negligible.

Perhaps Rabin and Arango are imagining new gun owners with no criminal history who got into disputes that turned deadly because they happened to have firearms. While they do not cite any evidence of the threat that newly armed people pose to others, they do suggest that gun buyers are endangering themselves. "The primary reason people give for purchasing a handgun is self-protection," they write. "But research published in the 1990s established that simply having a gun in the home increases the risk of a gun homicide by a factor of three, and increases the risk of a suicide by a factor of five."

If it is "established" that "having a gun in the home" quintuples the risk of suicide, you would expect a "gun-buying spree" to have a noticeable impact on suicides. Yet the CDC reports that "the overall firearm suicide rate remained nearly level between 2019 and 2020"—a fact that should have given Rabin and Arango pause.

When it comes to homicides, Rabin and Arango do not specify the "research" to which they are referring, but they presumably are talking about a much-cited and much-criticized 1993 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine. In that study, Arthur Kellermann, then director of Emory University's Center for Injury Control, and his co-authors reported that "keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide." Specifically, the risk factor was 2.7, leading to the popular gloss that "keeping a gun in the home nearly triples the likelihood that someone in the household will be slain there." Kellermann et al. concluded that "people should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes," implying that the practice is clearly foolhardy.

"The study has many flaws," Reason's Brian Doherty noted in a 2016 review of gun research. "In addition to the predictable failure to establish causality, there's a more glaring irregularity: Slightly less than half of the murders Kellermann studied were actually committed with a gun (substantially less than the national average in 1993 of around 71 percent). And even in those cases he failed to establish that the gun owners were killed with their own guns. If even a small percentage of them weren't, given that more than half of the murders were not committed with guns, the causal relevance of the harmed being gun owners is far less clear."

Several other factors were more strongly associated with the risk of homicide in Kellermann's study. The risk ratio was 5.7 for illegal drug use, 4.4 for living in a rental unit, and 3.7 for living alone, for example. Yet you do not often hear warnings that renting an apartment or house more than quadruples the risk that someone will be killed in your home, presumably because people would immediately recognize the hazards of drawing a causal conclusion from that correlation.

Is a causal inference more plausible when we are talking about gun ownership? Maybe not, especially since people may purchase guns precisely because they face an unusually high risk of violence.

Kellermann et al. matched their "cases" (homes where a resident had been killed) to "controls" based on sex, race, age range, and neighborhood. They adjusted for four potential confounding variables: whether the residence was rented and whether it housed an illegal drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone "who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home." But factors that the researchers did not take into account, such as vengeful ex-boyfriends or other potentially violent people with a grudge, could have made residents both more likely to own guns and more likely to be killed.

"The main reason research on this topic is inconclusive," Reason TV's Justin Monticello notes, is that "the answer almost entirely depends on individual differences that can't be easily be controlled for in social science research." As statistician Aaron Brown told Monticello, "a gun expert with a gun safe in a high-crime neighborhood may well be safer with a gun," while "a careless alcoholic living in a low-crime area who keeps loaded guns in his kids' closet is certainly going to be less safe."

Despite all these concerns, Rabin and Arango claim Kellermann's study "established that simply having a gun in the home increases the risk of a gun homicide by a factor of three." They casually assert a cause-and-effect relationship that the study did not prove, blithely dismissing the millions of Americans who buy guns for self-protection as deluded idiots. According to the Times, science has "established" that it's reckless to keep a gun in the home for self-defense, which the Supreme Court has recognized as "the core" of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Notably, the study cited by the Times, like much of Kellermann's research, was funded by the CDC. The agency's involvement in promoting gun control provoked a 1997 congressional ban on such grants that was not lifted until 2018. Now that the CDC is again delving into this area, the agency's director, Rochelle Walensky, has been careful to avoid further controversy by disavowing a political or policy agenda. "I'm not here about gun control," she told CNN last August. "I'm here about preventing gun violence and gun death."

The CDC report on gun homicides reflects Walensky's caution. "The findings of this study," the authors say, "underscore the importance of comprehensive strategies that can stop violence now and in the future by addressing factors that contribute to homicide and suicide, including the underlying economic, physical, and social inequities that drive racial and ethnic disparities in multiple health outcomes." They mention "policies that enhance economic and household stability," "locally driven approaches that address physical and social environments that contribute to violence and other inequities," and "prevention strategies" that "focus on populations experiencing the highest risks for and rates of violence."

The only references to gun control policies involve "child access prevention laws," which criminalize "negligent" firearm storage in various circumstances, and "laws preventing firearm ownership by those under domestic violence restraining orders." Given the implications of treating gun violence as a "public health" issue, which provides pseudoscientific cover for the Biden administration's gun control agenda, the CDC may yet venture into more controversial areas. No doubt The New York Times wishes it would.

NEXT: ICE Operates a Sweeping ‘Dragnet Surveillance System,’ New Report Finds

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "Private Gun Owners Attack The New York Times"

    Alternate headline and, as it so happens, a solution to the problem.

  2. You just know these fuckers are coming for our guns. Only a matter of time. They can all go fuck themselves.

    Charleton Heston said it best.

    1. They can only come for your guns if you refuse to use them in the intended manner.

      1. haha well too bad the left's definition of 'intended manner' is very likely to change to allow confiscation...if they don't all get voted out in Nov that is

    2. That's exactly what I was going to say!

  3. Wonder if the crack reporters at the NYT will look into how many crimes are committed by legal gun owners?

    1. For them, legal gun owner is an emotional contradiction.

  4. First, why is there a CDC report on homicides? Aren't they busy enough with communicable diseases like COVID and bird flu?

    Second,
    a "gun-buying spree" during the pandemic for the 2020

    Right...the "pandemic".

    1. By the way, this is the Scientific Expertise we're supposed to trust:

      "several explanations have been proposed," including "increased stressors (e.g., economic, social, and psychological) and disruptions in health, social, and emergency services during the COVID-19 pandemic; strains in law enforcement-community relations reflected in protests over law enforcement use of lethal force; increases in firearm purchases; and intimate partner violence."

      1. Don't blame anti police and marches for racial strike. Ignore where these increases are occurring.

        1. also don't forget the release of multiple 1000s of felons so that they won't get covid in jail. ironic since they forced others into homes to spread the covid. shit world is backwards and on purpose

    2. You misunderstand the meaning of CDC, it really stands for Center for Democrat Control.

      1. Constant Despotic Control

    3. Yep. Thousands of dipshits rioting in the streets over crackhead Floyd had nothing to do with anyone buying any guns.

      1. Right. They have cause and effect reversed. That’s the danger of taking a correlation and trying to guess at causality.

    4. shouldn't the CDC be lasered focused on ecigs?

    5. Hard to say if it was motivated by the pandemic, but the increase in NICS submissions started before the death of George Floyd, and from what was reported in CA, something like 40% of those applications were first time buyers.

      I don't think that there's any real tie between the "15 million extra" guns legally in circulation and the 5000 "extra" gun homicides that year; even if it did that would be a rate of at most 1 in 3000 having been used for such a purpose. There was a huge surge in gun purchases in CA, and with most of the state's population being locked down (a huge portion of them willingly cowering alone in bathtubs full of purel with visquene taped over their windows and three masks on lest they encounter any sort of microorganism), it's hard to imagine there was much of an increase in homicides anywhere but maybe Oakland. Even Compton has quieted down some since the 1980s.

  5. Still wrong about everything.
    I have an idea where the feds can start saving some money.

    1. Eliminate all alphabet agencies.

  6. "The study has many flaws," Reason's Brian Doherty noted .. No it has the same ONE flaw as the 'studies' that said the Sun revolves around the earth.

  7. " no reasonable person would concider the nyt a source for news"
    -nyt legal council during a slander trial

    1. When it comes to fake news the onion is trying to be comedy and the nyt is trying to be drama. It is like one of those really bad art movies that only 1000 people ever see.

      1. From what I've seen lately, the Onion has switched over to taking a lot of unfunny pot shots at the Babylon Bee (who are having way too many of their satiric headlines show up in the "real" news 4-6 weeks later for anyone's comfort).

        Onion did recently have a weird feature of "what conservatives think about free speech" which I'd assume must seem funny to a hard-left progressive, and which oddly included Nacy Pelosi along with the usual suspects (Cruz, Abbot, McConnel, DeSantis). Based on the through-line of the alleged jokes in that piece, I'm guessing its authors think that the "cancel" mobs have only ever attacked people who casually and frequently use the "n-word" in their public communications.

        1. Seems to me that the Bee is out competing the Onion in the satire news dept which is why the Bee is receiving attention from the other guys.

          1. Onion used to be great, and was the only "satire news" source that was at all well known for a long time.

            Lately they're working with 1.5 hands tied since they went so hard into "team blue" that once "their side" took power they've been trying to do what they do in a world where most of the government is now "off limits" in their own minds.

            How so much of the country's "comedy professionals" can possibly look at Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, or Maxine Waters and see nothing to joke about might be the greatest example in history of willful ignorance.

  8. I attribute it to the mandatory masking and vaccination edicts.
    Government mandates went up, homicides went up.
    We must outlaw government mandates, for the children.
    Who could possibly argue against that?
    You would have to be the kind of a person who would kill babies.

    1. Something about putting on the mask just makes you feel like you're supposed to be carrying out as train robbery....

  9. It cites an estimate by gun violence researcher Garen Wintemute that "there remain roughly 15 million more guns in circulation than there would be without the pandemic."

    Ban pandemics!

  10. fuck off. The gun-buying spree was a RESULT of the murder spike and a reaction to the demonstrated knowledge that if mostly peaceful pink-haired Antifa Zombies came crawling through your window, the police would not only be unable to help, but would refuse to do so if the opportunity arose.

    1. Yeah, it's not like the ignorant rednecks thought they were going to shoot the covid before it got 'em.

      1. Notice how NONE of the BS happens in ignorant redneck country. Just in the big blue cities.

        Wonder why?

        1. When antifa got off the bus on in Couer d’Alene, Idaho back in June of 2020, they quickly got back on and left. Mainly because a bunch of locals were downtown open carrying. As word of their impending arrival got out. Antifa was politely informed they were welcome as long as they weren’t there to start trouble.

          Turns out antifa scumbags don’t like people who can fight back, or law enforcement that does their job.

          1. BLM didn't expect the local chapter of The Red Devils to be waiting for them here either.

            1. Yeah, the left doesn’t do well when their prospective victims can fight back. A whole crowd of the, many armed, couldn’t even take down one armed teenager in Wisconsin.

      2. username = ElvisIReal
        smears 'rednecks'

      3. Now now, those rednecks are the biggest threat to national security. What are you, a Putin puppet or ultra MAGA.

        1. Ultra MAGA Putin Zord.

          1. ‘Ultra MAGA’ sounds pretty cool. I’ll have to have t shirts made. It might become the next ‘Let’s go Brandon’.

    2. how anyone with a half a brain cell couldn't see that is beyond me...every night on the news for months we saw burning and looting in the streets and the police being attacked for no reason other than they're law enforcement - and when you defund the police it pretty much means people have to defend themselves and their property with whatever means they can come up with...pretty stupid that our elected leaders didn't see that coming

      1. didn't sheriffs in both LA and Florida say get a gun and defend your self.

        1. one of then recently said - save the tax payers money and shoot the criminals...

          1. I bought guns in the spirit of
            Kyle Rittenhouse.JIC.

            1. Guns I've got, it was the ammo that was the bitch.

              1. Especially at today’s prices.

          2. So basically, execute democrats?

  11. intimate partner violence

    AKA the rise in male feminism.

    1. "It's just this war and that lying son of a bitch, Johnson!"...

  12. "a careless alcoholic living in a low-crime area who keeps loaded guns in his kids' closet is certainly going to be less safe."

    I wouldn't say "certainly".

    1. The advantage the sober gun expert is likely to have over the careless alcoholic is that he is less likely to mutter "nigger" under his breath after dispatching an intruder.

      Muttering "nigger" turns routine home defense into "hunting a black man for sport," which turns the whole neighborhood into a mostly peaceful barbecue pit.

      1. Or, to be more recently topical, "colored".

      2. I don't consider myself a "careless alcoholic" but I do catch myself saying "nigger" more than I used to. Also "pillow biter, cigar smoker, rug muncher..."
        Times are tough.

        1. I enjoy calling Tony a faggot. Not because I anything against gays, as I’m largely indifferent towards them. I just really hate Tony and like being mean to him.

    2. Low crime like in Maine?

    3. Seems like a careless alcoholic is very likely to be in more danger in almost any scenario that could be imagined. Having guns and/or kids present likely doesn't help any, but the same would be true of many small kitchen appliances, power tools, random sharp objects, household cleaners and other chemicals, and glassware.

  13. Holy shit, this happened.

    "Pregnant person"

    "woman"

    "No... pregnant person"

    1. Best comment, which I'm going to put in the old toolbelt for future use:

      "Well, anyone can become pregnant, so it's not just limited to women."
      "Well, as a man, I'm against abortion."
      "This doesn't concern you."
      "But I can be pregnant, therefore I do have a say in it."

      1. I liked "You could physically see the hamster fall off the running wheel in her brain when she tried processing someone correcting her."

        1. And a womyn correcting her. The nerve.

        2. I didn't read it as a hamster falling off the wheel. I read it as a mental downshifting from her automated abortion rights screed to her automated gender rights screed. "Oh, you think you assume you've got a moral grievance that matters to me? I've got a gear for this, just let me shift into it."

      2. I am curious to see how many discussions can be promptly cut short with the "I support Roe v. Wade because it enshrines and protects men's abortion rights." elevator fart. I kinda wish people were still able to smoke cigars indoors.

    2. When they said the left was beyond parody, they weren't joking.

    3. "I'm sorry."

      ^The moment where you think you'll have the opportunity to display that you're in the right but are really just demonstrating how unprincipled, irrelevant, and stupid as you possibly can be. You aren't sorry. You've rehearsed for this moment.

    4. A lot of "blue check" twitter has reverted to the idea that "men can't get pregnant" with the dust-up around Roe.

      Gavin Newsom recently tweeted something that likely would have got him cancelled 5 weeks ago...

    5. Hahahaha, comedy gold.

  14. I don't see the words "DEFUND THE POLICE" anywhere!

    1. Down the memory hole.

    2. That was a republican idea all along. Jen Psaki said so, and there's no reason to question her credibility.

  15. another NYT article citing "experts" and twitter posts, YAWN

  16. The paper blames a "gun-buying spree" during the pandemic for the 2020 jump in murders.

    Well, it's not like there was anything else going on in 2020 that could explain it. /sarc

  17. The paper blames a "gun-buying spree" during the pandemic for the 2020 jump in murders.

    In other news, the New York Times has recently discovered:

    * Increases in auto accidents cause increases in drunk driving.

    * Refugees fleeing countries cause wars.

    * Rabies infections in humans cause animal bites.

    * Salmonella causes people to under-cook eggs.

    * Sudden wealth increases cause game show victories.

    * Wet sidewalks cause rain.

    1. Babies cause abortion.

      1. Abortions cause pregnancy. Although I don't know that I'd call the discovery that abortion rights are women's rights are reproductive rights are privacy rights a recent discovery.

  18. Drug OD deaths increased from 2019 to 2020 by more than the total number of gun homicides in 2020.

    Maybe the CDC should prioritize the cost in lives from the pandemic lockdowns; isolation being a huge factor for addicts in recovery relapsing and overdosing, not to mention causing/exacerbating a raft of other psychological issues which could lead people to attempt to self-medicate. Especially in light of the meta-analysis (admittedly done by economists, but it's not like there's any way to do a blind-controlled study on the topic) which concluded that those same policies had very little, if any effect on the rate of Covid deaths.

    Anyone want to put odds on any agency of any level of government pushing for accountability over the measurable costs and imagined benefits of the authoritarian policies they intentionally created panic in order to justify?

    1. I'll point it out again that if gun homicides are a social disease and gun ownership is the vector, then Twitter, FB, et al. are a much more far-reaching, faster, and efficient vector for a broader array of social disorders.

  19. Hey, if two things happen kinda at the same time, and there are some numbers involved, how much more Science! do you want?

  20. Come on give the NYT some slack, they've been saving this article for 25 years while crime was going down while gun ownership went up. They are just happy the finally got to use it.

    1. Crime went down and gun ownership went up? - Chicagoan

      1. There is no explaining Chicago other than some place has to be more corrupt than New Orleans and more overran with gangs than south Central, Compton and Oakland combined. And because it wasn't miserable enough you get all the humidity of the Midwest, combined with all the wind of the Midwest. What isn't there to love about the place?

        1. But at least you have a lot of Poles, Germans and Italians living there, so you get great sausage and Italian food.

          1. Unless they all moved to Indiana?

            1. Anecdotally, the Germans and Italians are leaving (not for IN AFAIC) or assimilating. You can definitely tell the place is historically Italian, German, and even a little Greek but up-and-coming or still going strong regio-ethnicities are the Poles, Ukrainians, and non-distinct Eastern Europeans (with the general background of Mexicans, Chinese, and Indians probably somewhat as you'd expect). But, going by the 'foreign tongue spoken on the street' rule of thumb, the Germans and Italians are nowhere to be found.

  21. From the CDC report.

    "For example, the firearm homicide rate among Black males aged 10–24 years was 20.6 times as high as the rate among White males of the same age in 2019, and this ratio increased to 21.6 in 2020."

    But the problem is legal gun buyers. Yep.

    1. The interesting thing there is that you can’t legally buy a handgun (and be included in the FBI statistics for gun purchases) until 21.

  22. Never knew there were so many Legal Black NRA Fans.

    LOL...Only one group is LITERALLY culling itself with violence at a click unseen before...You know the ones.

    The Amish and the Mennonites.

    I would assume a good 70% of those using guns are NOT supposed to have weapons...Keep getting caught or committing crimes yet somehow the governments refuse to lock them up.

    You know because it's not their fault at all...Cus of justice and all that.

    The Blue Cities will be on fire this summer.

    Enjoy.

  23. At least we have this own-goal to laugh at….

    "Americans went on a gun-buying spree in 2020 that continued into 2021," although sales have since returned to their usual level. It cites an estimate by gun violence researcher Garen Wintemute that "there remain roughly 15 million more guns in circulation than there would be without the pandemic."

    The “pandemic” was step 1 in the fortification. It was the excuse to manufacture social and economic chaos needed to push Presidementia into office and Trump out. And an externality of that chaos is a result they definitely don’t like: a huge increase in not just the number of individual guns in circulation, but, even more crucially, the number of gun owners. It wasn’t only proverbial Bubba the Redneck buying his 73rd AK lower kit, but Joanna the Working Mom, and Jordan the Gay Banker, many of whom traditionally at least lean democrat, who bought many of those guns as their first gun.

    That’s several steps back in their ultimate quest.

    1. A lot of those urbanites bought very expensive condos (excluding security) in gentrified parts of the cities. They can’t just pack up and leave. Of course they are going to defend themselves or their families.

      I just read that some Mexican farm laborers are going back to rural Mexico, it’s safer. I guess organized crime is better than unorganized crime.

  24. I notice the number of comments on Sullum 'articles' keeps getting smaller, even when "GUNS" are involved.
    Is he becoming as irrelevant as the NYT he so often regurgitates?

    1. Nah, he's just writing less about Trump, so people have less to attack him for.

  25. Demonicrats hate guns because they know how much they should be rounded up, shot, and killed.

    Yaknow, if anyone didnt know....

  26. #1 Gun seller in the country: George Soros, for funding the riots, Defund the Police, as well as soft on crime DAs across the country. Everyone saw the pictures of AntiFA and BLM rioting across the country, and then their Dem controlled mayors and DAs refused to use the police and courts against them, and started not prosecuting even violent crimes, esp if they involved POC perps.

  27. How can Bernie have his socialist revolution if suburbanites and flyover rurals can defend themselves?

  28. Jan. 6 made it clear that the radical right has been deliberately planning for a coup and has been arming militias for decades for the cause using your horrifically nonsensical NRA talking points. Many of you will even admit that a violent coup is the very contingency for which the 2nd amendment exists (which is the opposite of the truth, of course).

    The United States' nightmarish gun death rates are your fault. You advocate for that rate of death for the sake of a liberty you can barely articulate. A just world would see all your guns seized. But we can't do that, right, even if a legitimate democratic majority wants to? Because you'll start shooting.

    Western civilization!

    1. key phrase, "A just world would see all YOUR guns seized.

      1. why do libs say "gun deaths" and not "violent deaths"?

        1. Because they know that gun suicides are mostly legal but they give no fucks at all about the other half of people who commit suicide without a gun. Sure, shooting yourself might violate some obscure 'discharging a firearm within "x" many feet of a dwelling' but no state actually makes suicide illegal. Granted talking about it will get you locked up for your protection because they'll say your insane but technically it isn't illegal.

          Interestingly our suicide rate hasn't historically been much different from many other "non-shit-hole countries". Go finger.

    2. And all of your leftist idiot rioting shows that it is necessary to own a gun. People like you hate guns because of what may happen when you take things too far.

    3. Your "legitimate democratic majority" can kiss the pimples on Harvey Weinstein's ass. The US isn't now nor has it ever been a democracy. You and your would be wolves will have to abide by the guns we sheep own. Deal with it clinger.

    4. The coup began in November of 2020, and is ongoing.

  29. Sullum you do a great job with this issue.

  30. If they really wanted to lower gun violence they'd end drug prohibition because almost all if it is gangs fighting over drug turf. Ending drug prohibition would save the overdoses, save black lives and end the cartels.

  31. "increased stressors (e.g., economic, social, and psychological) and disruptions in health, social, and emergency services during the COVID-19 pandemic; strains in law enforcement-community relations reflected in protests over law enforcement use of lethal force; increases in firearm purchases; and intimate partner violence."

    Grease-ball Newsom strikes again.
    (and would someone at Reason throw some more coal in the firebox of the boiler which powers the server?)

  32. The N.Y. Times has been singing anti gun/anti gun rights psalms for as long as I can remember. I will be 90 years old my next birthday.

  33. Someone should ask her and Fauci how much money they made from the very pharmaceutical companies they are supposed to watch over the last few years.

  34. What a shock, knee jerk reactionary churnalists jump to conclusions without any actual data. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the median age of firearms used in these homicides is little different from the 12 years of almost every other homicide. But then it's hard to draw a line to purchases made over a decade ago to purchases made a year ago. It's all narrative propaganda but then it's Pravda, err - NYT. Meh, same same.

    1. Oh, I should add that 15 million extra guns producing only 5 thousand extra homicides is actually pretty good since it means at a bare minimum 14,995,000 or 99.97% of those guns harmed exactly nobody.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.