Violent crime was down in 2025. It wasn't the first year it was down, but it was down more last year than just about any point I can remember. That's a very good thing, and a lot of people are asking why that's the case.
It's not so much looking a gift horse in the mouth as trying to learn from what works. I get it. It's just too bad the New York Times is determined to look everywhere but where they should.
In a report, the Times focused on all kinds of programs that are being credited with the reduction in so-called gun violence, which is fine. Some of those may well have played a role.
However, something they never bring up is the Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which ruled that the "may issue" concealed carry permitting schemes that were the norm in many gun control states were unconstitutional. This opened up the proverbial floodgates for concealed carry, with millions more people walking our city streets with guns on their person.
This is something the anti-gun crowd claimed would lead to a drastic increase in violence, but that simply isn't the case.
In fact, nothing at all is mentioned about guns in and of themselves except for the most brain-dead take humanly possible:
Patrick Sharkey, a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University, said the drop could partly be attributed to the end of the pandemic, during which a surge in gun purchases and changes in day-to-day routines caused the rate to rise. Funding from the American Rescue Plan Act, which was passed in 2021, also helped stabilize cities, he said, and bolstered their police departments.
So people didn't buy as many guns and...what?
Guns don't have expiration dates. It's not like the people who bought guns at the start of the pandemic suddenly couldn't use them anymore because the guns were only good for four years or something. Those guns are still available.
In fact, the Times seemed bound and determined to ignore the Bruen decision, the fact that there are more guns in private hands than ever before, and more guns in concealed carry holsters in our community than ever before, and simply act like it's a non-factor.
All while they've been breathlessly repeating the mantra of "more guns means more crime."
So when there's a correlation between guns and crime, even if it's tenuous, folks like the Times will lean into it and pretend there can't be any other factor involved. They'll even berate anyone who tries to present an alternate hypothesis as to what's going on.
Yet when there's a clear correlation between more guns and less crime, well, then we need to credit every social program anyone has tried anywhere that saw a dip. Never mind that their poster child, Camden, New Jersey, is located smack dab in the middle of a state that was as hostile toward lawful concealed carry as any state could be, and that was the most impacted by Bruen.
That doesn't fit the New York Times-approved narrative, so screw mentioning that.
