The New York Times has a true howler of an "article" about the dangers that guns cause as "proven" by the DC "sniper." What's wrong with this piece?

1. 4 paragraphs of fear mongering.

2. Homicide is not necessarily murder. I've read that something like 20% of the homicides are considered justifiable in the FBI data each year. I also think it may include suicides which is a favorite trick of the gun control lobby though I do not have enough time to disect these numbers and find out.

3. Ballistic fingerprinting is likely to not be effective. Its the equivalent of taking a tire tread impression every time a new tire is sold and comparing it to the same tire with 20,000 miles on it. Yup officer, its a .223, but that slug in the corpse's is a .223... And oh yeah, there are probably 7 million .223's in the US give or take a few million...

4. The .223 is not a sniper weapon and not a part of "sniper culture," so what does "sniper culture" have to do with this event or any recent event? The .223 is a standard issue infantry weapon and considered a varmiter (shooting rats, snakes, and at the outside extreme coyotes) in private use.

5. Ballistic fingerprinting is really a backdoor to national gun registration. The government only registers things it wishes to tax or deny you the use of. Also, it is a lame attempt to add cost to the transaction and deny weapons to the lower classes who often are in more need of them than those of us who can live in the suburbs and afford ADT.

6. There is no gun show loophole. It makes me so mad that I will type no more on it, but force you to read this link: https://64.32.255.141/content/file.4

7. So the final question is, what exactly is there in this article that is either relevant to anything newsworthy or factually based?

I guess we have to give Bob Herbert some credit - at least he made sure to get all of the current campaigns of the anti-gun movement in one "article."

cherished how fashion, I like the buy wow gold eu too