Blast

[Beck]

Get a subscription. In the NYT, it most definitely is political. Journalistic ethics to their editors is an oxymoron. Check their bias ratings. They'll take some insignificant piece of information and twist it to the left. Read the article, it may sound scientific but the agenda is more government regulation. My two cents, if you want to hammer your brain in an indoor range, go ahead. I don't need some NYT do gooders to tell me something already known and what, when and where to shoot. We have too much of that now.

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

I don't think anyone would claim that the NYT isn't left leaning, but your take on situation doesn't need to be political

 

[Beck]

More fodder: When it comes to guns, the NYT doesn't even shed the sheep's clothing. Never take anything they print on guns as good. Their proven agenda more regulation.


number of anti-gun articles in the New York Times


re: Perplexity.

The exact number of anti-gun articles in the New York Times over the last year is not directly stated in available sources. However, it is well-documented that the New York Times has consistently supported strict gun control in its coverage and editorial stance, publishing numerous articles highlighting gun violence, critiques of gun rights, and calls for stronger regulations. The Times published detailed analyses and mapping of gun homicides, coverage of legislative efforts on gun safety laws, and opinion pieces largely favoring gun control measures.

While the total count is unavailable, the volume of reporting and editorial content reflects a strong focus on gun control advocacy rather than a balanced or pro-gun rights perspective. Coverage includes critical views on gun ownership's costs and the societal impact of guns, consistent with an anti-gun control editorial line. This context indicates a substantial number of articles leaning anti-gun in various sections, especially in news reports on gun violence and in opinion/editorial pieces.

you're just talking to yourself now

 

[Mountainshadows]

US Soldiers are only allowed in training to shoot a maximum of three rockets or missiels per day, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder-fired_missile , Mk 153 SMAW, Javelin, Carl Gustaf 8.4 cm recoilless rifle. Those have really large bores and high decibles blasts producing massive over pressure for a substantial to the brain amount of time. Three hits (over pressures) to the brains and humans need a rest.
that doesn’t punish the body each and every shot!"

I understand why we went political when the NYT article is the basis for the post. I'm sure they would do anything to show how bad guns in any form is bad for you.
I was fortunate enough to go to a very exclusive weapons course during my time in the US Army. We studied everything from pistols to mortars, to anti-tank weapons, to calling naval gunfire, to calling air strikes. (turns out, it was my job training)
I distinctly remember the Carl Gustav as we were only allowed to fire it once a day during training (which we did), and in combat, it was recommended to be only fired twice a day. I'm sure after Iraqi Freedom, where they were being fired more than that, the standards changed. Maybe not for the better. The overpressure from that particular weapon is crazy, but not as much but pushing it too, is the overpressure from the 90mm recoilless and the106mm recoilless.
I have managed to be around a lot of blasts in my short life, the above weapons to name a few. Stand 3 miles away from a 100 ton, controlled explosives demolition, and after some seconds feel the overpressure slap you and push you back! Simply incredible!
To my knowledge, ill regardless of my large consumption of alcohol, I do not suffer from any brain injuries (yeah, my hearing is shit).

 

[Hogpatrol]

you're just talking to yourself now

And I sometimes answer back.