NY Times Editorial

Courtesy of The Irish Times:

NYT editorial: ‘The Gun Epidemic’

In its first front page editorial since 1920, the New York Times calls for greater gun control

Facade of the New York Times headquarters building on 8th Avenue in Midtown Manhattan. Photograph: Thinkstock/Getty Images

Facade of the New York Times headquarters building on 8th Avenue in Midtown Manhattan. Photograph: Thinkstock/Getty Images

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, inCalifornia. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in ColoradoOregonSouth CarolinaVirginiaConnecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans also should be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that people can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like FranceEngland and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically ? eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation. Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency.



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to NY Times Editorial

  1. Scarsdale says:

    The radical gun nuts seem to all be conservatives. Democratic members are too sensible to want these weapons. All it would take is ONE mass shooting in DC, and the laws would be changed – FAST. Too bad the newspaper does not publish a list of how much and how often, these politicians receive “donations” (bribes) from the NRA. Maybe SHAMING them would help them get to the jobs they were elected to do, instead of pandering to special interests.

  2. Tumbleweed1 says:

    It is not about the “right thing to do”.
    It is all about who has the most money.
    More innocent people will die. We are not even close to addressing and fixing this problem.

    “Bang, bang, bang……you’re dead.”
    American Exceptionalism indeed.
    You called it Irishgirl.
    I was looking for a rock to hide under. AGAIN. But now I’m just pissed. Time to get active. Arrested too and also if that is what it takes to make my voice heard.

    I am tired of being embarrassed by my fellow man and their low hanging fruit.

    Fer fuck’s sake.

  3. 40Watt says:

    There’s the money involved – as always – the amorality of greed. There’s also the emotional responses and attitudes of the public. At one end of a continuum there is fear, lily-livered, yellow-bellied, sniveling cowardice that apparently can only be relieved by owning guns, the more and the bigger the better. At the other, there is the realization that it is reasonable to have fear of all these people and their damn guns, if not for ourselves, for our country. Somewhere on the continuum, there is the potential of a discussion in which fear does not dominate, where neither guns (with the exception of assault weapons etc.) nor people are demonized, ridiculed, or drowned out.

    Right now, it’s hard to imagine such a discussion taking place. To break an impasse, someone has to do something unexpected; something that, even momentarily, elicits a new response.

    In London, a hashtag based on the words shouted by an eyewitness at an attacker in the London underground on Saturday – “You ain’t no Muslim bruv” [brother] – has gone viral.


    Time for us all to get active, “to shout with all [our] lungs have to offer.” But more than that, it’s time to get creative. #YouAintNoMuslimBruv – a brilliant response that undermine[s] extremists.

  4. irishgirl999 says:

    I’m trying to retweet this. I know nothing about twitter or how it works…

    Love the message.

  5. 40Watt says:

    The President did beautifully.

    • ProfessorCanine says:

      Yes,he did.

      The problem as you point out is the ” fear, lily-livered, yellow-bellied, sniveling cowardice that apparently can only be relieved by owning guns, the more and the bigger the better”

      And Trump and Cruz gettin’ all their base(s) jacked up with hate.

      Makes me wanna bitch slap the both of ’em…..

  6. From yesterday on George Stepha-whatchama’call it – – Hillary was a breath of fresh air compared to The Donald on Face the Nation that was just ranting away about Mosques and hatred. Hillary’s side by side with the Trump replay was genuine and made me laugh. She may be aloof and rigid seeming at times, but she knows her stuff and outshines the clown car on any given day. ” CLINTON LAUGHS OFF TRUMP’S CLAIMS THAT SHE LACKS ‘STAMINA.’ Clinton responded to Donald Trump’s recent claims that she does not have “the strength or the stamina” to campaign in early primary states in an interview on “This Week.” Before listening to the clips of Trump’s comments, Clinton sat back and chuckled, “Oh, dear. A new one, huh?” “She’ll do a couple of minutes in Iowa, meaning a short period of time. And then she goes home,” Trump said Saturday at a campaign rally in Davenport, Iowa. “You don’t see her for five or six days. She goes home, goes to sleep. I’m telling you. She doesn’t have the strength. She doesn’t have the stamina.” Clinton watched the clip and laughed along with the crowd at Trump’s rally, ABC’s MATTHEW CLAIBORNE notes. When the clip concluded, Clinton responded, “Who can agree with anything he says that is, you know, subject to one second of fact checking?”

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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