I can’t think of the last time the New York Times ran an editorial on A1. It took up the left two columns on the cover of Saturday’s paper. Here’s what it said:
All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California…
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.
The paper of record went on to say: “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… Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership.”
You can’t think of the last time the New York Times ran an editorial on A1 because it was 1920.
I particularly enjoyed reading a few of the pro-gun and 2nd Amendment nutbag comments in response to the editorial on the NYT website.
If the Newtown shootings of 20 elementary school students hasn’t affected change to existing gun laws, I fear nothing ever will. Thanks for giving me another reason to be completely hopeless my wonderful US Gov’t.
I know it’s been said before, but when you restrict or ban the use of firearms, only the criminals will have them. Take a look at Australia, for instance. I’m all for strict and deep background checks for purchasing a firearm, but it has to be very deep. Look at the Ft. Hood shooter. He was vetted by the government and look how many he killed. Same with the wife in the San Bernadino shootings.
Yes. Please DO take a look at Australia.