NYT Front-page Editorial: “End the Gun Epidemic in America”

 

For the first time since 1920, the New York Times has posted an editorial on its front page. Back then, it was to inveigh against the presidential nomination of Warren G. Harding to replace Woodrow Wilson. (Harding went on to win the general election with more than 60 percent of the popular vote.)

This time, the Gray Lady inveighs against guns. We reprint it here in full and ask Ricochet members to respond to it.

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. 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 Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also 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 civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people 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 on 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 France, England 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?

Have at it, Ricochetti.

There are 161 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  1. Salvatore Padula Inactive

    Well, I’m convinced.

    • #1
    • December 4, 2015, at 7:55 PM PDT
    • Like
  2. Suspira Member

    “At least those countries are trying.” Now there’s a rallying cry.

    • #2
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:01 PM PDT
    • Like
  3. Lash LaRoche Inactive

    End the Islamist epidemic in America. Halt all Muslim immigration to the United States. Now.

    • #3
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:01 PM PDT
    • Like
  4. DrewInWisconsin, Influencer Member

    “All decent people . . . sense of decency.”

    I believe this is what’s known as “Concern Trolling.”

    • #4
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:03 PM PDT
    • Like
  5. Lash LaRoche Inactive

    And my direct reply to the New York Times is as follows: “Go to hell.”

    • #5
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:05 PM PDT
    • Like
  6. BrentB67 Inactive

    Shallow article, no real argument.

    Everyone that wishes to rip the 2nd out of the Constitution will frame it and real Americans will shred/burn it.

    No effect either way.

    Personal editorial note: Do not give the NYT the credibility of a Main Feed Ricochet Post. The NYT in general doesn’t deserve it and this crap specifically does not.

    • #6
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:06 PM PDT
    • Like
  7. Jimmy Carter Member

    Letters to the editor:
    F and U

    • #7
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:06 PM PDT
    • Like
  8. Casey Inactive

    Well, if you’re gonna be wrong about something be wrong on the front page.

    • #8
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:07 PM PDT
    • Like
  9. Tom Meyer, Common Citizen Contributor

    It was worth the 95 year wait.

    • #9
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:07 PM PDT
    • Like
  10. DrewInWisconsin, Influencer Member

    Next to last sentence:

    . . . and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

    Talk about burying the lede.

    So after assurances from the White House that we’re safe and it’ll never happen here, we have what CNN called the largest terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11, and the New York Times’ response is “Turn in your guns, citizen! You are not allowed to protect yourself!”

    If this doesn’t boost gun sales, nothing will.

    • #10
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:08 PM PDT
    • Like
  11. Kevin Creighton Contributor

    But at least those countries are trying.

    Is it just me, or are they recommending “cultural appropriation” here? If so, isn’t that a no-no in PC culture?

    Shame on them.

    • #11
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:12 PM PDT
    • Like
  12. Profile Photo Member

    “It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.”

    This is…rather amusing for a group of folks who are in the First Amendment business to say.

    But never mind that. Much like their beloved President Obama, all they can do is steam, scream, and stamp their feet. These people have no moral authority, AT ALL, to tell their fellow citizens to , literally, put down their arms.

    • #12
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:13 PM PDT
    • Like
  13. Tom Meyer, Common Citizen Contributor

    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.

    Okay, I finished laughing at how badly written argued this was. One thought:

    This incident involved two killers who surprised unsuspecting people at a party in a building where weapons were not allowed 14. Under such circumstances, the limiting factor of the amount of carnage they were able to inflict was almost certainly not the presence or absence of an AR-15 style weapon.

    • #13
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:14 PM PDT
    • Like
  14. Kevin Creighton Contributor

    For the first time since 1920, the New York Times has posted an editorial on its front page. Back then, it was to inveigh against the presidential nomination of Warren G. Harding to replace Woodrow Wilson. Harding went on to win the general election with more than 60 percent of the popular vote.

    Given that track record, I hope they soon print front-page editorials on why single-malt scotches suck, Nissan trucks fall apart and how Windows 10 is the greatest OS in the history of everything.

    • #14
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:15 PM PDT
    • Like
  15. J. D. Fitzpatrick Member

    And we should outlaw pipe bombs as well. Oh wait.

    • #15
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:17 PM PDT
    • Like
  16. Western Chauvinist Member

    One of the more salient lines of a recent piece about the SB massacre concerned the two men sitting on the floor of the men’s room and holding the door closed with their legs, while they waited for the police to arrive.

    How is gun control going to make the police respond more rapidly?? As the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

    And here’s another saying: the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

    I have two suggestions for solutions to the recent spate of mass killings. 1) Get the mentally ill off the streets. 2) Fight the Islamist bastards over there.

    • #16
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:18 PM PDT
    • Like
  17. zepplinmike Inactive

    This is possibly the least persuasively written argument I’ve ever read. Basically, it’s: “ok, yea these policies have never worked, but we are morally obligated to adopt them anyway!”

    Make no mistake, the media’s vehement focus on the gun control issue in this case is a concerted effort to distract us from the Islamic terrorism angle.

    • #17
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:19 PM PDT
    • Like
  18. nedfromnowhere Member

    “It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.”

    Does that include the First Amendment as well?

    ” 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.”

    And how exactly do they plan on enforcing this law?

    • #18
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:21 PM PDT
    • Like
  19. DrewInWisconsin, Influencer Member

    Like it or not, the New York Times is still the Gospel Message for the left.

    I mean, we can laugh about how stupid they are, but unfortunately they are serious, and they whisper in the ears of those in power.

    So we mustn’t treat them like naive children. We have to take them seriously — and as a serious threat to liberty. We must treat them like the enemies they are. We are going to have to use all methods at our disposal to shout down these gun-grabbers. They cannot be allowed to control the narrative. The GOP needs to start pushing back against this nonsense. Also good Democrats, if there are any left.

    • #19
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:23 PM PDT
    • Like
  20. Jimmy Carter Member

    DrewInWisconsin: Next to last sentence: . . . and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens. Talk about burying the lede.

    No, They didn’t. It’s stated Right below the headline:

    It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

    They’re advocating for a tyrannical government Right there; civilians.

    William Pitt:

    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

    • #20
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:23 PM PDT
    • Like
  21. Kevin Creighton Contributor

    Congratulations, New York Times, you’ve just ensured a GOP majority in the House and Senate for the next two years at the very minimum.

    • #21
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:26 PM PDT
    • Like
  22. Max Ledoux Admin

    Suspira:“At least those countries are trying.” Now there’s a rallying cry.

    Liberals don’t care about results.

    • #22
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:30 PM PDT
    • Like
  23. BrentB67 Inactive

    Western Chauvinist:One of the more salient lines of a recent piece about the SB massacre concerned the two men sitting on the floor of the men’s room and holding the door closed with their legs, while they waited for the police to arrive.

    How is gun control going to make the police respond more rapidly?? As the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

    And here’s another saying: the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

    I have two suggestions for solutions to the recent spate of mass killings. 1) Get the mentally ill off the streets. 2) Fight the Islamist bastards over there.

    The Islamist bastards are here, hundreds of thousands of them just waiting for the trip wire. We can nuke Syria before this thread reaches 50 comments an all that will probably do is shorten the fuse on the cells that are here.

    • #23
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:30 PM PDT
    • Like
  24. BrentB67 Inactive

    Kevin Creighton:Congratulations, New York Times, you’ve just insured a GOP majority in the House and Senate for the next two years at the very minimum.

    I hope you are correct. Not that it will mean very much with the current crew in those chambers.

    • #24
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:31 PM PDT
    • Like
  25. Richard Fulmer Member

    The only gun epidemic that exists in America is the one in embedded deep in the leftist psyche. Violent crime and gun crime are down. But the NYT, like our Attorney General, cannot let this “wonderful opportunity and wonderful moment to really make significant change” pass.

    Fourteen dead Americans: a “wonderful moment.” When everything is political, evil is just another opportunity.

    • #25
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:33 PM PDT
    • Like
  26. Probable Cause Inactive

    California already has gun control. And it worked. It prevented the San Bernardino victims from defending themselves against brutal, ideological killers. And now fourteen disarmed innocents are dead.

    Yes, we need to try. We should all call upon California to liberalize conceal & carry, so that we can increase the only thing that terminates these incidents — responsible, trained and equipped responders.

    Because the proper response to fire is to increase fire extinguishers, not outlaw them.

    • #26
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:34 PM PDT
    • Like
  27. DrewInWisconsin, Influencer Member

    By directly calling for guns to be outlawed (while admonishing gun owners to turn in their firearms for the good of the nation) it occurs to me that the New York Times is basically calling for civil war. One could even say they are inciting it.

    • #27
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:34 PM PDT
    • Like
  28. Lensman Thatcher

    NYT, make my day. Argue for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. While you’re at it, why not push for a 21st century version of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 that outlawed war?

    It’s obvious that they believe in the magical effect of noble thoughts embodied in law (domestic or international) to prevent evil persons from committing homicide or genocide. For the Old Gray Lady it’s axiomatic that, if the law prohibits the would-be criminal from owning a firearm, his response will be, “Damn, I guess I better go buy a big knife if I am going to be able to pull off my next mass murder.”

    “When a man announces that he wants to kill you, take him seriously.” That is what a Holocaust survivor supposedly answered when someone asked him what he learned from his experience.

    History tells us that evil men with guns are only going to be stopped by good men (and women) armed with guns. When seconds count in stopping a murderer, the police are minutes away.

    The NYT editorialist lives in a fantasy world where the widespread ownership of firearms results in more crime. The actual facts are the opposite. We have more armed citizens now than ever before and the number of homicides are down, except in places like Chicago and Washington where “concealed carry” is largely prohibited by bureaucrats who subvert the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens.

    The right to keep and bear arms was not “given to us” by the 2nd Amendment. It’s a right recognized both here and in Britain for centuries before the American Revolution.

    Basic knowledge of human nature, history and natural law leads to the obvious conclusion that the 2nd Amendment was a good idea. The NYT only betrays a monumental and almost willful ignorance with its editorial.

    One last historical notes: The National Rifle Association was established by former Union officers who were disgusted with the poor marksmanship skills of Union troops in comparison to the Confederate soldiers. There has never been a conspiracy involving the firearms industry. Americans need to and want to have proficiency with all firearms, even if they look like military weapons.

    One can safely bet that practically no one on the New York Times editorial board now has, or has ever had, any proficiency with a pistol or a rifle. That’s for those red necks who live in the benighted states south of the Mason-Dixon line.

    • #28
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:35 PM PDT
    • Like
  29. Done Contributor

    BrentB67:Shallow article, no real argument.

    Everyone that wishes to rip the 2nd out of the Constitution will frame it and real Americans will shred/burn it.

    No effect either way.

    Personal editorial note: Do not give the NYT the credibility of a Main Feed Ricochet Post. The NYT in general doesn’t deserve it and this crap specifically does not.

    Given their shrinking circulation, I agree that it hardly warrants a response.

    • #29
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:37 PM PDT
    • Like
  30. Richard Fulmer Member

    I think that it’s time to fundamentally transform the road we’re on.

    • #30
    • December 4, 2015, at 8:37 PM PDT
    • Like
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6