Ethics Dunce: NYT Columnist David Brooks

Compared to most of the mouth-foaming progressive activist and propagandists that make up the New York Times stable of pundits, I suppose you could call David Brooks a sort-of conservative, everything being relative. But he also poses as a public intellectual and “the adult in the room,” which is why his recent disinformation while serving as a guest on the PBS NewsHour last week is so damning.

In a discussion about gun control, Brooks responded to host host Judy Woodruff query, “You agree the likelihood of there being any more federal action on guns is very unlikely?” by saying,

I have never understood why an Australian-style gun buyback is an affront to anybody. It’s an open choice. You can sell your gun or not. But if we’re going to reduce 400 million guns, it would take something like that, not even just banning future purchases. I mean, we have got 400 million here!

Really David? You can’t understand the objections to an Australian-style buy-back? Maybe you need try informing yourself about another country’s policies before you endorse them, and your own country’s Constitution before you presume to lecture on what policies are objectionable in the U.S. 

The Australian buy-back program wasn’t an “open choice,” it was mandatory. That’s what lawyers call “a material distinction.” Depending on what weapons were targeted, a mandatory, forced sale of guns would almost certainly be a Second Amendment breach, and it would also be unenforceable without house-to-house government confiscations. Do you understand why that would be an “affront” to Americans?

Naturally, Woodruff didn’t have the wit, integrity or knowledge to correct her guest, so now all those PBS fans will nod in agreement when Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton, as they have in the past, cite Australia as an attractive model for “sensible” gun control.

______________________

Pointer and Facts: Newsbusters

13 thoughts on “Ethics Dunce: NYT Columnist David Brooks

  1. The conclusion of a Vox (which Victor Davis Hanson calls “the young adult section”) article on Australia’s gun buy-back:

    “Bottom line: Australia’s gun buyback may well have saved lives, likely by reducing homicides and almost certainly by reducing suicides. Again, Australian lessons might not necessarily apply to the US, given the many cultural and political differences between the two countries. But in thinking about gun violence and how to limit it, this seems like a worthwhile thing to look at.”

    https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

    Ridiculously squishy: “may well have” “likely” “almost certainly” “might not necessarily apply” “seems like a worthwhile thing.” All those could just as well state the opposite. And by golly, Australia’s different! Ya think?

  2. The Australian gun buyback was a relative failure. There are actually now more guns in Australia than there were before the buyback, which only netted about 1/3 of the guns on the continent.

    Of course they could always say we should go the route of the UK and the complete ban on handguns after the one mass shooting in Scotland or the route of New Zealand, which made law abiding gun owners criminals overnight after the Christchurch mosque shooting, after which the prime minister appeared in public wearing a Muslim head scarf and cities boomed the Muslim call to prayer over the public address system. I think it’s the first time a white nation self-conquered.

    David Brooks is nothing more than a token “pet” conservative who the NYT keeps around to provide a conservative agreement with their main arguments and to occasionally shake his finger at the other conservatives who don’t agree. He’s the Petain of conservativism.

    • I think Brooks has a really bad case of Stockholm syndrome. I’m not even sure he’s capable of making eye contact with anyone anymore.

    • Of course they could always say we should go the route of the UK and the complete ban on handguns after the one mass shooting in Scotland or the route of New Zealand, which made law abiding gun owners criminals overnight after the Christchurch mosque shooting, after which the prime minister appeared in public wearing a Muslim head scarf and cities boomed the Muslim call to prayer over the public address system. I think it’s the first time a white nation self-conquered.

      What did the assault weapons ban in New Zealand accomplish?

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/469376/tongan-community-holds-meeting-to-address-gang-violence-concerns

      • He seemingly helped further one of his goals, per his “manifesto”, where he wrote that one of the reasons he carried out the attack (with guns) was
        “to create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural, political and racial divide within the United states.”

  3. If they want to look at the greatest correlation to murders of all types, including those involving firearms, they should look at the democrat party’s core constituents, mainly in democrat-controlled cities. That would be uncomfortable for them…and not just because they aren’t the group which owns the most firearms.

  4. Depending on what weapons were targeted, a mandatory, forced sale of guns would almost certainly be a Second Amendment breach, and it would also be unenforceable without house-to-house government confiscations. Do you understand why that would be an “affront” to Americans?

    Just remember, the same side that pushes for these confiscations is the same side that pushes for restorative justice.

    They are the same side that pushed for defunding the police.

    They are the same side that, for two years, told us that police regularly hunt down unarmed Black men.

    What do they think would happen once the first Black man is killed in an attempt to confiscate firearms.

    And, of course, Australia’s buyback program failed to prevent gang violence.

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/murder-and-mourning-as-gangland-violence-takes-its-toll-in-sydney-20220519-p5amx7.html

    • Funny how the problem in Oz is gangs. There’s no mention of “too many guns” or “gun violence.” They actually see the shooters, who are known criminals, as being the problem. Refreshing. No mention of the need for gun control. They want more police.

  5. Old Bill:
    “No mention of the need for gun control.”
    Don’t kid yourself mate, there are plenty here in Oz pushing the ban all guns stupidity!

    One of the recent suggestions was to limit the amount of ammunition anyone can have – have, not even just have on them at one time! This apparently will have an impact on the drug mob violence in a couple of our larger cities – you know, where some thug fires five rounds into the front of someone’s house at two in the morning – once a year! Why would a law abiding competition shooter who might shoot two hundred rounds on any given day have a problem with a law like that?

    The crap that goes on in the US is invariably referenced here in news bulletins as they train the sheeple to fear and hate guns and gun owners.

    • Just speaking of the piece Michael T linked to in his comment.

      I find Oz a funny place, Paul. A terribly smug, self-satisfied. almost cocky citizenry. Not a lot of Paul Hogans/Crocodile Dundees I’ve been able to see. Maybe being a continent the size of the U.S. with a population of Los Angeles does something to people’s head. And everybody seems to be wealthy without having to work very hard or worry about a thing! The money just seems to pour in from China or somewhere. Natural resources, I guess. Just seems like some sort of Ponzi scheme to me.

      (I like my new handle. Had my 71st birthday late last month. If the shoe fits, wear it.)

  6. Here in New Zealand a lot of the law abiding citizens handed back their guns while the criminals hid theirs and the government has no idea who has what. As someone who has no criminal connections I have no idea of how to get hold of any gun which is on the forbidden list while criminals can much more easily get hold of guns.
    Brenton Tarrant, the Christchurch mosque shooter with no criminal connections found it difficult getting hold of the guns he wanted in Australia so he moved to New Zealand with its more lax gun laws to do his attack.
    Any gun confiscation law passed by any government therefore leaves the law abiding people less able to defend themselves while letting those with criminal connections still able to get hold of guns.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.