I applaud the stance of the Times and couldn't agree more.
1
Only those who have lost their sense of security and faith and confidence in the government which is supposed to protect them under all circumstances need to keep weapons. Once a person acquires arms for self defence or for whatever reason, he or someone from his family or friends circle may be tempted to use it at least once, though it may not result in harm/injury to others always. The government must strengthen the measures that will make all its citizens, regardless of their colour, religion or economic status feel absolutely safe and enjoy peaceful and happy life without any worry about their safety. So, in the light of what has been said above, the time has come for the law makers of US to think out loud on these lines and redesign the government's policies and actions required to check the spreading gun culture that is posing a great threat to the society at large. Please do something urgently, without further loss of time.
1
You have a misconception there. There are two entities in America, Federal and the State government. The federal government is to protect the national interest. The state government protects the people’s interest. At this point in time the Federal government being so bloated and over wrought with corruption as you know in your own government; it has removed more and more jurisdiction away from the state government. This cause an out of touch, and unknowing intrusive entity like the federal government to be more of a hindrance than a help on any issues. By restricting reaction of the local authorities the criminal element knows that investigation or prosecution will be little if any consequence to hamper their activity that it spurs more and more activity, this is when the citizen begins to feel insecure and this is also when the rise in firearms purchasers takes place.
One of more courageous moments in Times history. We have so many spineless, gutless, toothless organizations that just kowtow to corporations and lobbyists (like Smith and Wesson and the NRA). I do wish it had been on a Sunday, not a Saturday, but at least you made a statement.
3
It is plainly evident to me that the NY Times Editorial Board is more dangerous than gun owners. The callousness with which you advocate for the denial of a fundamental Constitutional right, blurring the line between fair reporting (i.e . "going bananas") and your editorial opinions, should be of great concern to every American who believes that the Bill of Rights matter. You only believe in those rights that line your pocket book. How convenient...and how frightening.
I would like to live long enough to see the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment explained and explicated over and over and over again to educate this country that what was written in the late 1790's does not obtain and did not as the country grew and changed. There was no question about that until the NRA, founded in 1871 to improve marksmanship in the military, in 1975 began to lobby and start us down the path on which we now walk. Arguably. It is distinctly out of line with the the views of the population on gun control. It has 5 million members with more guns than people in this country of over 320 million, a majority of whom want gun control. I would hope the Times will continue to point out the absurdity of living in a country where we can go nowhere without fear of death.
1
“On the con side, there was the argument about separation of news and opinion.”
You have to be kidding. That has never stopped you before???
You have to be kidding. That has never stopped you before???
1
It's truly time for "separation of news and opinion," your words, not mine. The gun epidemic editorial did NOT belong on the front page of a prestigious newspaper. The NY Times is fueling the fire and driving Americans, who feel abandoned by our government and the media, to protect ourselves.
Want to reduce the huge arsenal of guns suited for mass killings? Stop the manufacture, sale and import of them. Make it a felony to convert existing ones to "killing" machines. AND create an ongoing nationwide program to buyback all potentially convertible ones. Our country can afford to offer owners a great price. "AP4 LR-308 in 2005 is smaller, faster and lighter AR-10-style carbine with more punch and heft than the M4 carbine. Standard features include an A3 height receiver rail, A2 front fixed sight, and a collapsible stock. The MSRP is $1300" so offer to buy them at a 20% premium => $1560. $1.56 million buys 1000 guns and $1.56 billion buys 100000 guns. ( By comparison the cost of ONE Tomahawk cruise missile is about $1.4 million.) Let's budget at least $2 billion a year until most high capacity semi-automatic weapons are eliminated.
5
You are presupposing that legitimate gun owners are going to sell their guns for some unknown reason, or profit. - you are wrong.
The Page one editorial was leadership that I thought belonged to a prior generation. Thanks for not being passive bystanders. I would ask the NYT to take it one step further, and explore Wall Streets's infatuation with guns. Start with the Munitions Committee investigation of J.P. Morgan, and their financing of the Mussolini build up. The U.S. Senate predicted WW II before it happened, and nothing was ever done about it. With Lend-Lease Aid, the taxpayer paid for arming Stalin, and Eastern Europe would pay for it in spades, and the American taxpayer would have to pay again to rebuild in the Marshall Plan, and then pay again for the Truman Plan, to contain the Soviets. The gift that keeps on giving!
1
But the NYT did not note who is buying the guns:
1] those with mental health issues who are afraid new legislation will prohibit their buying guns.
2] those with orders of protection against them, ditto #1.
3] those law-abiding citizens who want to add more assault weapons to their arsenal.
4] potential terrorists who want to get assault weapons before the background checks go into effect.
5] Minorities who are afraid of backlash, in general, and don't want to be on any lists.
I agree with regulation of ammunition; an empty gun is good only as a club.
1] those with mental health issues who are afraid new legislation will prohibit their buying guns.
2] those with orders of protection against them, ditto #1.
3] those law-abiding citizens who want to add more assault weapons to their arsenal.
4] potential terrorists who want to get assault weapons before the background checks go into effect.
5] Minorities who are afraid of backlash, in general, and don't want to be on any lists.
I agree with regulation of ammunition; an empty gun is good only as a club.
2
How do you all intend to enforce your new gun laws?
Send in men with guns to shoot the non-compliers?
You're nauseating.
Send in men with guns to shoot the non-compliers?
You're nauseating.
Many of us read what reinforces our existing opinion. Hence the majority of NYT readers agree with the editorials and op/ed pieces much of the time. Ditto with the WSJ on the other side of the fence. The sad aspect is that the NYT is preaching to the choir. My guess is that there won't be much change until publications like the WSJ and the GOP are willing to be part of the solution instead of stonewalling. The problem is that many pols have golden handcuffs put on them by the big money which includes most notably the NRA.
1
Surely, anyone on the no-fly list that buys a firearm would already come to the immediate and urgent attention of the authorities.
If not, why not?
If not, why not?
I am grateful that the Times decided to make a bold statement in articulating its reasoned, sensible opinion on the lack of political will to deal with gun violence. Now, I respectfully ask the Times to go beyond publishing just words and add pictures of the horrible effects of gun violence in this country. Without seeing images, even graphic ones, I don't think enough Americans will push their elected leaders to take the action that is so dearly needed.
3
Now there's a reasonable statement. Show the pictures. Show what those poor children and teachers in Newtown looked like dead. Show all the dead people in these totally avoidable acts until it sinks in to those who defend guns. this is war/terrorism on the "beloved homeland". Make sure it's out there for everyone to see. Don't wait until it's the child/spouse/parent of some politician who thinks it won't happen to him/her. We stopped looking at carnage because of Vietnam-no general wanted that on the front pages. Time to start showing what it really is, not avoiding the horror.
Martin O'Malley nailed it.
The "assault- type" weapons used in the recent mass murders are actually combat weapons, designed and intended to kill as many "enemy" as possible in the shortest possible time. As such, they have no place in civilian ownership.They are next to useless for most sports hunting; who would want to eat venison torn to shreds by a fusillade of bullets? In France, such guns are banned from private ownership as fusils de guerre (war weapons),yet the French still enjoy a long tradition of sport hunting of upland game, wild boar, red deer,etc.I myself have hunted boar in the Haute Vienne south of Paris with a.30-30 Winchester lever action rifle that is banned for deer hunting here in Illinois ( we can only use shotguns) And as for home protection, a shotgun is better anyway: the larger bore is more intimidating, and when loaded with 00 buckshot, more effective as well. So here's an idea for all the callow congressmen who dive under their desks at the mere mention of the NRA: Just amend the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 to include combat-style assault weapons along with machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, and silencers,all of which must be registered with ATF and require the purchase of a $200 tax stamp.
The "assault- type" weapons used in the recent mass murders are actually combat weapons, designed and intended to kill as many "enemy" as possible in the shortest possible time. As such, they have no place in civilian ownership.They are next to useless for most sports hunting; who would want to eat venison torn to shreds by a fusillade of bullets? In France, such guns are banned from private ownership as fusils de guerre (war weapons),yet the French still enjoy a long tradition of sport hunting of upland game, wild boar, red deer,etc.I myself have hunted boar in the Haute Vienne south of Paris with a.30-30 Winchester lever action rifle that is banned for deer hunting here in Illinois ( we can only use shotguns) And as for home protection, a shotgun is better anyway: the larger bore is more intimidating, and when loaded with 00 buckshot, more effective as well. So here's an idea for all the callow congressmen who dive under their desks at the mere mention of the NRA: Just amend the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 to include combat-style assault weapons along with machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, and silencers,all of which must be registered with ATF and require the purchase of a $200 tax stamp.
2
Perhaps the society should overcome its fear of firearms in the hands of criminals by arming itself.
Then it would be a question of how to control the impulse of "shoot first, ask questions later".
Then it would be a question of how to control the impulse of "shoot first, ask questions later".
Thank you, NYT, for saying what needs to be said.
1
i love the NY Times and have been a regular reader for over forty years, a subscriber for decades. I appreciate that the paper needs it sources of income, but your lucid explanation for how the front page editorial came about is too important to be a pay for play item. I am not a subscriber to "Inside the Times," but sometimes I find the teasers enticing--or in this case, important--but I am put off by the sense of elitism the "Insider" stuff suggests. There is enough of that in the real estate section.
2
Thank you for voicing what the majority of Americans seem terrified to - that guns in this society are out of control and need to be addressed in a definitive way. Even if you don't post this - I just wanted to say thank you for being brave and responsible journalists and editors. This shows why the Gray Lady is still at the top of her game.
4
The per-capita murder rate in the U.S. is at its lowest level since the Eisenhower administration.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html
But, argumentum ad passiones, whatever.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html
But, argumentum ad passiones, whatever.
1
Right o- we need more laws like those in NYC and Chicago to protect us.....oh...wait....
The right thing ,at the right time ,in the right way.
3
Thank you for highlighting the tragedy of gun violence in the United States by publishing the editorial on page one. I hope we as a society are able to address this important issue to eliminate so many guns.
3
1. The Times admits its proposal might not even prevent the kind of shootings that prompted the editorial.
2. The Times admits that the real problem is not necessarily a lack of gun control laws, but that Americans possess too many guns. The goal, is to "reduce the number of firearms in circulation."
3. Confiscating weapons will ultimately, to some degree, have to be carried out by force, with armed government agents.
I don't own a gun. To me, the real moral failing of the Times crusade against guns is that it serves mainly to provide powerful cover for those desperate to avoid politically sensitive topics: Islamic extremism in the West, and the experiment with single-parent communities (where a vastly disproportionate rate of gun violence occurs.)
I urge readers of the Times to think this through, and ask yourself how far you are willing to go to avoid confronting topics that may prove politically uncomfortable.
2. The Times admits that the real problem is not necessarily a lack of gun control laws, but that Americans possess too many guns. The goal, is to "reduce the number of firearms in circulation."
3. Confiscating weapons will ultimately, to some degree, have to be carried out by force, with armed government agents.
I don't own a gun. To me, the real moral failing of the Times crusade against guns is that it serves mainly to provide powerful cover for those desperate to avoid politically sensitive topics: Islamic extremism in the West, and the experiment with single-parent communities (where a vastly disproportionate rate of gun violence occurs.)
I urge readers of the Times to think this through, and ask yourself how far you are willing to go to avoid confronting topics that may prove politically uncomfortable.
4
I can't even imagine a world where the White House harbors a Republican President, opposed to any form of gun control, women being denied any reproductive rights, official climate change denial and generalized oil drilling wells, and there you go. In summary: the USA completely isolated from the rest of the civilized world. Given the importance and relevance of this country, the overall effects will be enormous and widespread. Lord only knows what will happen next....
4
Funny, I always assumed that everything in the NYT was an editorial.
4
Just curious, why would you?
I was a bit surprised that though you printed the editorial on the front page of the print edition you did not choose to give it similar "front page" placement on your website. I find that odd. As the Times moves more and more into the digital realm I would think you would want to treat your online readership to the same editorial emphasis that you provide your print readership.
1
I've said a million times "WHY IS THIS NOT ON THE FRONT PAGE"
Thank you New York Times. Now if the voters will elect the government that will BAN AK47s AND THE LIKE....
Thank you New York Times. Now if the voters will elect the government that will BAN AK47s AND THE LIKE....
4
An NYT page-1 editorial doesn't have nearly the impact it would in a different time. With the internet as the great equalizer, non-stop news cycles and anyone with a Facebook account have the same potential voice and reach. NYT is more or less preaching to it's own choir at this point, the historic editorial in and of itself changing no minds, catalyzing no particular action.
1
"Thank you!" to the NYT editorial board for sustaining a focus on guns and gun violence in America.
Regarding the irrational logic of “Let me buy any gun I want to defend myself, or I’ll shoot you” there is another infantile line of logic that drives me crazy, and I'm sure we've all heard variants of it. For example, cars kill people too. So you want to ban all cars? Hammers can kill people so you want to ban all hammers? And so on. When I hear such arguments, it feels like any response is a waste of my time.
Regarding the irrational logic of “Let me buy any gun I want to defend myself, or I’ll shoot you” there is another infantile line of logic that drives me crazy, and I'm sure we've all heard variants of it. For example, cars kill people too. So you want to ban all cars? Hammers can kill people so you want to ban all hammers? And so on. When I hear such arguments, it feels like any response is a waste of my time.
3
The right thing, at the right time , in the right way.
Looking in from Canada, I am truly appalled at how far the Gun Lobby has taken over this entire discussion. I am a college professor, and had an impromptu discussion about this with my students. The gun lobby argues that ANY restriction on the type/style/capability/size/etc. of gun that a person can own is an infringement on their rights. This is true. HOWEVER, in a "civil" society, we justly give up SOME of our rights (not all obviously), to ensure that we are all "safe". I do not believe that the founding fathers ever thought that the 2nd amendment would be used to ensure that anyone could easily purchase a rapid fire weapon that has the sole purpose of hunting only ONE animal..... A human being......
4
THANK YOU for putting this topic on page one. To date the Congress has not taken real action on this issues does not mean it is NOT REALLY IMPORTANT to most of the people I know in my community.
6
Ninety-five tears is a long time! Just shows NYT got its priorities right on this one too.
I have always liked the courageous way you seem to relish doing 360 most of the time,especially on US domestic affairs,and Int'l affairs that impact the US. On this one though you need to look maybe for the 361st degree!
I mean you are on target on the cynical alliance embracing the gunmakers,the gun lobby and the indulgent godfathers on Capitol hill. But aren't they all servants of one constituency,the gun buying American citizenry? They are the ones who have made "more guns than folks" a terrifying reality. The other three survive,and thrive,only by pandering to the deep-rooted,almost atavistic,fears in the psyche of the American citizen (male perhaps?). Why do I so desperately need a dozen guns to "protect myself" in an advanced first world society governed by the rule of law?
It may be unpleasant,even painful,to look at this deep down but I do believe that is where you have to start. The other three,after all,are merely players in the free market economy who profit by doing the bidding of the ultimate Master,the buyer. Feel like looking at this as the 361st degree?
Back home in India,there are only 6.3 million registered guns in civilian hands for a population of 1280 million. I am 70,me and my extended family have never owned a gun nor feared falling victim to violence in living memory. I dont know what you would call us-fearless or foolhardy or ante-deluvian!
I have always liked the courageous way you seem to relish doing 360 most of the time,especially on US domestic affairs,and Int'l affairs that impact the US. On this one though you need to look maybe for the 361st degree!
I mean you are on target on the cynical alliance embracing the gunmakers,the gun lobby and the indulgent godfathers on Capitol hill. But aren't they all servants of one constituency,the gun buying American citizenry? They are the ones who have made "more guns than folks" a terrifying reality. The other three survive,and thrive,only by pandering to the deep-rooted,almost atavistic,fears in the psyche of the American citizen (male perhaps?). Why do I so desperately need a dozen guns to "protect myself" in an advanced first world society governed by the rule of law?
It may be unpleasant,even painful,to look at this deep down but I do believe that is where you have to start. The other three,after all,are merely players in the free market economy who profit by doing the bidding of the ultimate Master,the buyer. Feel like looking at this as the 361st degree?
Back home in India,there are only 6.3 million registered guns in civilian hands for a population of 1280 million. I am 70,me and my extended family have never owned a gun nor feared falling victim to violence in living memory. I dont know what you would call us-fearless or foolhardy or ante-deluvian!
2
To the NYTimes: have you ever wondered why
it is that if you can legally buy a gun of any kind, then use it and kill someone, it's a capital crime.
Why do we allow the sale of guns.
it is that if you can legally buy a gun of any kind, then use it and kill someone, it's a capital crime.
Why do we allow the sale of guns.
December 9, 2015
The New York Times Editorial that was front page read home and around the world. Powerful and respected leadership – leads giving notice to why, and what is needed to make a great difference in minds and hearts. Cultural authority for this cause judiciously and heroically is what’s needed for the goal maintaining gun restraints and use with earned rights regulated to the cause in our fair and just society.
Thanks for giving great journalism’s siren of commanding wisdom to the historical record - that just make me so very proud to be among and a poster to this opinion comments.
JJA Manhattan, N.Y.
The New York Times Editorial that was front page read home and around the world. Powerful and respected leadership – leads giving notice to why, and what is needed to make a great difference in minds and hearts. Cultural authority for this cause judiciously and heroically is what’s needed for the goal maintaining gun restraints and use with earned rights regulated to the cause in our fair and just society.
Thanks for giving great journalism’s siren of commanding wisdom to the historical record - that just make me so very proud to be among and a poster to this opinion comments.
JJA Manhattan, N.Y.
4
December 9, 2015
A New York Times Editorial that was read and understood at home and around the world -
Powerful and respected leadership - must lead in its function to be read and taking notice to why, and what is needed to make a great difference in the readership minds and hearts - having cultural authority sometimes and in this case is the power of the press - judiciously - and heroically -as there are times when we know what is needed for all and all times as the goal of maintaining our restraints and earned rights - regulated to the cause of fair and just society - Thanks for giving the siren of wisdom to readers and the historical record - that just make be so very proud to be among and as a poster to this opinion journalism - that is now is own reporting done right.
JJA Manhattan, N.Y.
A New York Times Editorial that was read and understood at home and around the world -
Powerful and respected leadership - must lead in its function to be read and taking notice to why, and what is needed to make a great difference in the readership minds and hearts - having cultural authority sometimes and in this case is the power of the press - judiciously - and heroically -as there are times when we know what is needed for all and all times as the goal of maintaining our restraints and earned rights - regulated to the cause of fair and just society - Thanks for giving the siren of wisdom to readers and the historical record - that just make be so very proud to be among and as a poster to this opinion journalism - that is now is own reporting done right.
JJA Manhattan, N.Y.
1
I completely agree with your assessment. There are TOO MANY GUNS out there. All the no-fly lists, mental health checks, background checks and the rest of these attempts to curb the problem will have minimal results as long as there are more guns than people. My suggestion: declare a moratorium on ALL new guns sales, require anyone with any sort of firearm to submit to a review of their necessity to have said firearm and grant a license where justified, and invoke severe penalties for possession of an unlicensed gun. Jail time, not just a fine. Other countries have dealt with this issue; so can we. The total irresponsibility of the gun industry has voided their protection to continue this. Not unlike what the insurance industry has done to health care. It's time to take the profit motive out of this issue and protect the citizenry from this greedy bad behavior.
2
'Let me buy any gun I want to defend myself, or I’ll shoot you' is not a rational argument. As Andrew Rosenthal puts it so well. This sort of 'reasoning' appears to be embedded in so much American life today. So anyone who claims to defend the second amendment while shredding the first, can please take a hike.
3
"Let me take your gun or I'll shoot you" (which will be necessary, to some degree to confiscate guns) is also not a rational argument. Or, it should not considered so by rational people.
3
A question for New Jersey voters: Is hunting more fun when you tear a bear apart with a rapid-fire military rifle?
4
A question for John Q: Did you know that the people in New Jersey don't have access to rapid-fire military rifles?
5
Jeremie Edwards: You're right. New Jersey residents, however, can buy a handgun, rifle, or shotgun, and those living in eight New Jersey counties can bang away at a bear from December 7 through 12. What fun!!!
1
A wise Irishman said that someone who takes himself too seriously is overly conscious of his rights, but he who takes life seriously is conscious of his obligations.
I always think about this when gun owners tout their rights. If only these poor, beknighted souls could get beyond the fears that inspire their narrow views, we all could share the responsibility for a safer, more civil society.
So, NYT, keep up the good work of keeping all of us informed.
I always think about this when gun owners tout their rights. If only these poor, beknighted souls could get beyond the fears that inspire their narrow views, we all could share the responsibility for a safer, more civil society.
So, NYT, keep up the good work of keeping all of us informed.
6
Bravo to the New York Times for front-paging their sentiments. Americans have become hostages in our own country. The weapons industry, NRA, and soulless legislators beholden to the gun industry and the right wing of the Republican party have cast the mold of a nation in rapid decline.
The settling of disagreements in peaceful and civilized ways has been trumped by the justifiable fear of death by gunfire. There is no reconciliation, no moderation, no tolerance. The barrel of a gun makes the ultimate, irreversible decision for us all.
The settling of disagreements in peaceful and civilized ways has been trumped by the justifiable fear of death by gunfire. There is no reconciliation, no moderation, no tolerance. The barrel of a gun makes the ultimate, irreversible decision for us all.
1
Please keep this up. The U.S. is an aberration amongst civilized societies.
Unfortunately, a huge number of Americans either do not know how aberrant we are, or persist in denying it.
So one thing you MUST do is start informing and educating: how many gun deaths there are every day, how many of them are carried out by family or intimate acquaintances of the victims, how few of them are "terrorists" aka immigrants or foreigners.
Who are these 100 senators who glibly speak of prayers but quietly aid and abet continued gun violence? Please profile them. What are their reasons for refusing to guide our country toward sanity and peace? Clarify how many of them speak from actual experience with the deadly consequences of gun violence, either in war (i.e. Graham) or the neighborhood (Booker), and those whose ideas come more from movie fantasy-lands where caricature macho men impress their womenfolk by shooting all (and only) the bad guys. (And note how TV/film ducks reality here as well.)
Please highlight what actual defenders of the peace -- police and military -- think about sending armed citizens, shoppers, students and drivers out onto the streets.
Bring home the concrete reality, the facts, the usual consequences of giving every Tom, Dick and Harry a semi-automatic gun.
Examine the reasons for the addiction to guns of a minority of Americans.
Above all, post the daily or weekly gun violence statistics showing how anomalous we are relative to civilized countries.
Unfortunately, a huge number of Americans either do not know how aberrant we are, or persist in denying it.
So one thing you MUST do is start informing and educating: how many gun deaths there are every day, how many of them are carried out by family or intimate acquaintances of the victims, how few of them are "terrorists" aka immigrants or foreigners.
Who are these 100 senators who glibly speak of prayers but quietly aid and abet continued gun violence? Please profile them. What are their reasons for refusing to guide our country toward sanity and peace? Clarify how many of them speak from actual experience with the deadly consequences of gun violence, either in war (i.e. Graham) or the neighborhood (Booker), and those whose ideas come more from movie fantasy-lands where caricature macho men impress their womenfolk by shooting all (and only) the bad guys. (And note how TV/film ducks reality here as well.)
Please highlight what actual defenders of the peace -- police and military -- think about sending armed citizens, shoppers, students and drivers out onto the streets.
Bring home the concrete reality, the facts, the usual consequences of giving every Tom, Dick and Harry a semi-automatic gun.
Examine the reasons for the addiction to guns of a minority of Americans.
Above all, post the daily or weekly gun violence statistics showing how anomalous we are relative to civilized countries.
18
Unfortunately I think many of the "defenders of the peace" are pro-gun in a cowboy, over the top sort of way. Not all, or anywhere close, but there are without question some folks in a uniform that would hate to see any reduction in guns or changes to gun laws, which ironically could possibly make their lives safer and jobs easier.
A salute to all the men and women who try to serve in as non-violent a way as possible.
A salute to all the men and women who try to serve in as non-violent a way as possible.
The Second Amendment is not a bar to regulation -- it expressly authorizes it -- of whatever is declared to be "protected" by it.
Moreover, as the author of the Amendment -- the first Congress -- makes expressly clear, the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a National defense.
The debate was whether to rely for that defense on a standing army -- which the Founders viewed as a threat to civilian rule; or on the militia, which the Founders viewed as NOT a threat.
So they chose to rely on the militia because they DID NOT intend that it be a threat to gov't. And that was consistent with the Militia Clause in the body of the Constitution at Art. I., s. 8., c. 15:
"The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.
The short of it: the Constitution does not authorize violating the Constitution.
Moreover, as the author of the Amendment -- the first Congress -- makes expressly clear, the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a National defense.
The debate was whether to rely for that defense on a standing army -- which the Founders viewed as a threat to civilian rule; or on the militia, which the Founders viewed as NOT a threat.
So they chose to rely on the militia because they DID NOT intend that it be a threat to gov't. And that was consistent with the Militia Clause in the body of the Constitution at Art. I., s. 8., c. 15:
"The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.
The short of it: the Constitution does not authorize violating the Constitution.
5
I deeply appreciate the New York Times taking a big, highly public stand on the gun crisis in this country. And now, thanks to the very recent Supreme Court decision not to hear the case of Highland Park IL and their gun restrictions, I feel that maybe the tide will begin to turn. I'm going to contact my city hall to find out of we have a gun control effort that I can join. (My city w photo states"Chicago," but I'm now in a suburb.)
4
I hope you are right. I also hope that people who feel the same as you back up those feelings with actions.
I'm a sensible, moderate gun owner with hunting and target weapons. I don't own an AR or AK, nor do I want to. But what people need to recognize is the pervasive, lawful ownership and use of military weapons. I go to a large rifle range, often 100 people there. 60+ percent are shooting AR or AK platforms. They represent millions who use these weapons for lawful purposes. They are popular because they are light, accurate, and very modular--easy to customize and tinker with. Gun owners love that. But it also makes their parts interchange readily, making them the ideal weapons to smuggle. if you criminalize this crowd, I suspect fewer than half would turn these weapons in, they would sell them on the black market for 10X the buyback rate, and we would have created a huge weapons black market here, probably in the neighborhood of 4M guns out of legal circulation. One can purchase an AK or AR in virtually any country in the world illegally, trust me, terrorists will NEVER be unable to acquire these weapons, especially in the US. Banning ARs is 1990's thinking. The best we could do is a special category that allows for ownership, but comes with a little more scrutiny. Let's wise up and get something accomplished. Prohibition of the 1920's will be viewed as a resounding success compared to a misguided AR prohibition that gushes assault weapons into a black market already replete with handguns.
6
Too bad you didn't "make a big and loud statement about" income inequality and the control of our government by the superrich in "a bold and exciting way...' Our maybe you could have focussed a laser-like opinion piece on global warming and named named in Congress. Either of those might have actually had an impact on millions of your fellow citizens, the lives of their children and grandchildren, and the future of our democracy. The obsessive focus on mass killings, which actually present a statistically negligible danger to the average citizen, is a red herring, an obfuscation, a distraction from the issues that DO matter. That is what Bernie Sanders has tried to say, but the anti-gun pc crowd can't let go of its obsession so we keep wasting time, money, votes, and millions of words on a non-important, divisive issue that helps to keep the Republicans in power and gives feckless "Wall Street" Hillary a convenient rant platform from which she offers no genuine solution, just more rhetoric and suggestions for how to inconvenience more law-abiding citizens without solving the problem of the violent and the mentally unstable who walk among us.
6
Thank you.
3
It's fun to see what goes on behind the scenes at the NYT. I'm glad we this opportunity.
1
While I am happy that the Times is taking up this issue, I'm wondering why it took so long?
3
Methinks the Times readers are being played. The first front page editorial in 100 years (!) about gun control? Guns are rousing the editorial staff to be "bold and exciting"? Please. This cri de coeur sounds much like an attempt by Washington (both the current administration and contenders for the next one) to distract the public from such things as gaping income inequality, American soldiers dying in unending wars in the Middle East, and the 1%'s grip on the political process. The Times took no risks with this editorial. The paper knew that it wouldn't offend its traditional readership while it carried Washington's water.
6
Next an editorial on politicians who vote to allow potential terrorists to buy guns?
5
Mr. Rosenthal, given the hardy perennial nature of gun violence in this country, does the Times have any regrets about abruptly shutting down "The Gun Report?"
3
Guns are being bought at an increased rate since the San Bernadino incident. They are not going anywhere but in more hands of honest law abiding citizens! When are the Democrats going to start calling out the entertainment industry for their glamorization of assault weapons in their movies, movie posters, tv series & video games? We didn't have this problem of mass shootings 30 yrs. ago - what's change? Duh!
2
Study after study shows no link between watching movies and real violence. Having a weapon, however, leads to more death. Studies do show that. And of course, military style guns are the weapon of choice of mass murderers because the kill many people quickly.
1
Gun confiscation would lead to insurrection and the restoration of the Federal government under the original Constitution. Bring it on.
1
Republican Party and the NRA should be asked to explain how gun killings can be stopped if anybody can buy guns freely? They are heavily bribed by the gun lobby. Glock cannot sell guns freely in Austria but in US they have become merchants of death. As long as Republican politicians and NRA thugs are not felled by guns they won't change. You cannot control terrorism when you allow them to buy guns freely. One day some fellow will carry shoulder missiles claiming that he has the 2nd amendment right.
2
A thought came to my mind for a federal law.
The sale or use of any weapon designed to kill 6 or more human beings in less than one minute is hereby restricted. People or dealers who possess such weapons owned on December 7, 2015, may sell them to the federal government for retail value plus $100.
The sale or use of any weapon designed to kill 6 or more human beings in less than one minute is hereby restricted. People or dealers who possess such weapons owned on December 7, 2015, may sell them to the federal government for retail value plus $100.
2
This debate, along with other critical debates (the fate of illegals, and the resettlement of Muslim refugees) needs to be brought out into the open and debated down to the depth of the 'Benghazi debacle', and all of the other Republican boondoggles that we've been force to wallow through over the past 35 years.
These are real issues that require real knowledge and understanding. We cannot continue to govern by sound byte and the angry musings of fear mongers, hate mongers, greed mongers, bigots, and malcontents.
These are real issues that require real knowledge and understanding. We cannot continue to govern by sound byte and the angry musings of fear mongers, hate mongers, greed mongers, bigots, and malcontents.
5
"Sometimes it feels as if we are howling into a raging storm,"
If it feels any better, I'm howling right next to you.
If it feels any better, I'm howling right next to you.
4
The NYT decision to run their editorial on the front page is interesting, but hardly decisive in the argument over gun control. Like the WSJ and Fox News, it's becoming more difficult every day to differentiate between news reporting and opinion writing. Reporters seem to be assigned to topics that are on the editors' agendas and "report" accordingly.
The most encouraging development on the subject of gun control is the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the challenge to the assault weapons ban by a Chicago suburb. The challenge was based on the 2nd amendment and SOTUS sent a pretty clear 7-2 signal that localities had the constitutional right to ban certain types of weapons and certain types of ammo configurations.
The mystifying aspect to the argument that access to semiautomatic weapons is necessary in order to preserve American liberties is the most troubling element of the shouting match over gun control. Such a lack of faith in our country, our government and our people makes me wonder why those proponents of unfettered gun ownership don't simply move out of the country.
The most encouraging development on the subject of gun control is the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the challenge to the assault weapons ban by a Chicago suburb. The challenge was based on the 2nd amendment and SOTUS sent a pretty clear 7-2 signal that localities had the constitutional right to ban certain types of weapons and certain types of ammo configurations.
The mystifying aspect to the argument that access to semiautomatic weapons is necessary in order to preserve American liberties is the most troubling element of the shouting match over gun control. Such a lack of faith in our country, our government and our people makes me wonder why those proponents of unfettered gun ownership don't simply move out of the country.
3
Many of the comments here betray a serious disconnect by gun control advocates about how the right understands the 2nd Amendment. It also betrays a blind faith in the states ability to protect you which seems ironic given the quickness with which the left will criticize the corruption and incompetence of the states protective services in almost any other context.
1
Protect us from what? What are right wing gun owners so scared of? My nephew is a 16 year old gun fanatic (along with his father,) and he seems to be scared of everything! The more guns they buy, the more paranoid they become. I think in their case it is because they don't ever get out of their narrow immediate environment and so they believe the world is a lot more dangerous than it actually is. I have traveled a lot, and I can tell you that the number of people "out there" that we need to be scared of is tiny. Most people are normal, everyday folks living their lives and many are generous, kind and helpful even to strangers.
Americans, particularly on the right, are being fed a constant diet of fear-mongering, from terrorists to ebola, from African-Americans in hoodies to the mentally ill, and having guns makes them feel safer because they think it gives them control. Of course it doesn't make anyone safer. Any one with a brain can see that the more guns there are, the more violence there is, even if the NRA won't let the government collect stats on it.
We have to find a way to rid the country of this destructive bunker mentality and rampant paranoia.
Americans, particularly on the right, are being fed a constant diet of fear-mongering, from terrorists to ebola, from African-Americans in hoodies to the mentally ill, and having guns makes them feel safer because they think it gives them control. Of course it doesn't make anyone safer. Any one with a brain can see that the more guns there are, the more violence there is, even if the NRA won't let the government collect stats on it.
We have to find a way to rid the country of this destructive bunker mentality and rampant paranoia.
4
I have an idea...Make a law that makes killing illegal. That will fix everything.
I would love to see an article that closely examines why people are afraid their guns are going to be taken away. Has any law abiding citizen's guns ever been taken away?
4
Thank you NYT! These sentiments need to be expressed by rational and decent people everywhere, particularly media types.
2
This is a way to build an offense.
Narrow the Gun Control Issue to Reducing 30,000 Deadly USA Trigger Pulls
Let's ask what are the components that eventually build up the concept in a trigger-puller's brain that getting a firearm and shooting oneself or another person is a solution to something?
Handling a gun and pulling a trigger was observed and learned. This holds for the gang member, the local criminal and gangster, the self-defense shooter, the soldier, policeman, SWAT team member and ISIS terrorist. It includes the recognizable disturbed person driven by depression, mental problems, collected offenses, and poor judgment.
So it's observed, trained, learned and motivated by something.
So what are the NRA, our government, entertainment producers, and our society in general doing to peel these forces back in order to discover what can be done to reduce the trigger pulling that ends up with 30,000 dead each year in the USA?
How do we first classify and then create counter-measures against each clear type of deadly trigger pulling? What is the food chain of factors?
You start solving big problems by asking the big questions and you don't play dumb and hide behind stupid nostrums and platitudes. As you ask questions the answers start telling you what to do.
So let's find the experts and roll back the regulations blocking data collection and analysis, collect the data including metadata, and come up with ideas and solutions.
Ken Camarro
Narrow the Gun Control Issue to Reducing 30,000 Deadly USA Trigger Pulls
Let's ask what are the components that eventually build up the concept in a trigger-puller's brain that getting a firearm and shooting oneself or another person is a solution to something?
Handling a gun and pulling a trigger was observed and learned. This holds for the gang member, the local criminal and gangster, the self-defense shooter, the soldier, policeman, SWAT team member and ISIS terrorist. It includes the recognizable disturbed person driven by depression, mental problems, collected offenses, and poor judgment.
So it's observed, trained, learned and motivated by something.
So what are the NRA, our government, entertainment producers, and our society in general doing to peel these forces back in order to discover what can be done to reduce the trigger pulling that ends up with 30,000 dead each year in the USA?
How do we first classify and then create counter-measures against each clear type of deadly trigger pulling? What is the food chain of factors?
You start solving big problems by asking the big questions and you don't play dumb and hide behind stupid nostrums and platitudes. As you ask questions the answers start telling you what to do.
So let's find the experts and roll back the regulations blocking data collection and analysis, collect the data including metadata, and come up with ideas and solutions.
Ken Camarro
2
All Americans should know how their elected officials have voted on gun law legislation as well how much these gun people have donated to those so easily bought.
However, raising the shackles of the people who long to live in a John Wayne western or who think of a gun as being an extension of a body part will not be easily persuaded.
Thus this issue must be dealt with by those of us who have good sense, who have traveled far and discovered the pleasure of countries without our gun fixation.
I'd move to France in a flash not to get away from Isis (obviously) but to step away from friends and neighbors who have assault weapons stashed under their beds.
Our country is a pathetic example of a home of the free when we fear to even take in a movie.
However, raising the shackles of the people who long to live in a John Wayne western or who think of a gun as being an extension of a body part will not be easily persuaded.
Thus this issue must be dealt with by those of us who have good sense, who have traveled far and discovered the pleasure of countries without our gun fixation.
I'd move to France in a flash not to get away from Isis (obviously) but to step away from friends and neighbors who have assault weapons stashed under their beds.
Our country is a pathetic example of a home of the free when we fear to even take in a movie.
4
But why the picture of an Islamic home next to the editorial in print?
Naming names among our gun-loving Republicans is advisable, but it is also long past time for our psychiatric professionals and social workers to stop inundating the media day and night with their evaluations of our gun murderers and focus instead on gun lovers whose joy in watching birds and animals die overrides their concerns for human life.
6
Considering we here in CA already have the toughest gun laws in the country, and everything on Obama's wish list for regulation already exists, nothing is going to keep a terrorist or a nut from obtaining a gun. Also, did the NYTs forget about the 12+ pipe bombs that were found in the San Bernardino incident? Or the fact that the guns used in this crime were legally obtained, but later illegally modified? No law could've prevented any of this.
3
As a career journalist who has been reading the Times since becoming an adult ,I take a slightly different view. I put the merits aside. To me, if the Times felt it was necessary then it was. Occasionally you are little slow, trying to be careful, but when an issue becomes paramount the Times gives it the treatment it deserved.
2
There is no question whether readers thoughts belong (at least in summary) on the front page. I believe there are many of us who believe that the general public has no reason to possess handguns, but I am sure there are many who believe differently. The pages of the newspaper are where this should be argued.
1
San Bernardino was exactly the wrong place to stake your claims.
The massacre was calculated terrorism. At the time of the editorial, that already was a strong probabilty. Now it's definite, but you still refer a "spree" killing. How disingenuous can you be?
The massacre was calculated terrorism. At the time of the editorial, that already was a strong probabilty. Now it's definite, but you still refer a "spree" killing. How disingenuous can you be?
3
Thank you for your common sense and coherent arguments for gun control. Bravo for publishing it on the Saturday front page. I would have voted for the Sunday front page (and neon, if possible), but okay - I respect that you must have had reasons for your choice. It may feel to you as if you are howling in a raging storm, but it feels to me as if you are a beacon of clear light in a raging storm. Thank you.
1
The front page op-ed was brilliant. If you wish to continue to promote reasonable discourse and a policy of reasonable gun regulation, may I suggest: in an above-the-fold box of the daily front page, publish the previous day's national death toll and the accumulated annual death toll resulting from guns. If you have space, include the same totals for all of the European Union. America needs to be reminded daily how the NRA and their Republican representatives have made America so self-destructive.
5
Observing people who feel threatened by the idea of gun control, I am wondering if it would move us to common ground if we called it "gun safety"? The changes by necessity that need to be made and can be made--will come incrementally. And that's what we need to work for: common sense and rational gun safety measures. Thank you, New York Times, for keeping the spotlight on this issue; America's soul depends on it.
3
I love and admire the institution of The New York Times. And, I think an anti-gun crusade would be good, but because of this paper's under coverage of Bernie Sanders -- who represents a rural state where gun rights are popular (and, rural areas are not where the mass shootings take place) and therefore, he would be unelectable in his home state of Vermont if he took an all out position against guns. When nuances are expanded upon and we make distinctions between rapid fire weapons and hunting guns, Senator Sanders can easily voice his stand against automatic weapons. So, I think it's important to be precise in your speech. Also, there's a small part of my mind that cynically thinks this could be another talking point from the Hillary camp wherein they think this issue, presented in a black and white/all or nothing way could place their opponent in quick sand.
5
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with 'hunting'.
I love Bernie Sanders, and was leaning towards voting for him. However, gun control legislation is a deal-breaker for me. If Bernie cannot come out clear and strong for responsible gun ownership and regulation, I cannot vote for him. Hillary has long since stated her position for responsible regulation of gun ownership, in detail, as is her custom. To me, there are no longer any "nuances" or "distinctions" when it comes to guns and assault weapons in this country. We need strong leadership to end this carnage and loss of life. I need to know that I and those I love will be able to engage in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness--without fear.
3
Gun ownership in the US has taken on the aura of an 'arms race'. In theory, there is not gun that is big enough to win the day.
Gun manufacturers, ammunition manufacturers, gun dealers, and other weapons manufacturers love that.
I'd say that the best answer is to go back to the idea that the guns are kept in an armory and checked out when needed (one advantage would be that we would at least have an opportunity to pre-check or recheck the sanity of the acquirer at the point of issuance).
Hunting is still a sport in places where the wildlife hasn't been completely decimated, and target shooting is fun, but the self defense argument is just a plain and simple challenge to the criminals to come and do their work with better preparation and bigger weapons.
The problem is, and will always be that some will pass the sanity test and find a way to use their gun to kill the windmills of their minds.
The one-shot long riffles of the Constitutional era have been replace by the 60 shot-a-minute automatic weapons of our day. There is no reason not to believe that there will be equal incentive to "need" even more powerful weapons against the 'mental windmills' of the future.
Gun manufacturers, ammunition manufacturers, gun dealers, and other weapons manufacturers love that.
I'd say that the best answer is to go back to the idea that the guns are kept in an armory and checked out when needed (one advantage would be that we would at least have an opportunity to pre-check or recheck the sanity of the acquirer at the point of issuance).
Hunting is still a sport in places where the wildlife hasn't been completely decimated, and target shooting is fun, but the self defense argument is just a plain and simple challenge to the criminals to come and do their work with better preparation and bigger weapons.
The problem is, and will always be that some will pass the sanity test and find a way to use their gun to kill the windmills of their minds.
The one-shot long riffles of the Constitutional era have been replace by the 60 shot-a-minute automatic weapons of our day. There is no reason not to believe that there will be equal incentive to "need" even more powerful weapons against the 'mental windmills' of the future.
Why in the world are responsible gun-owners afraid of keeping guns out of the the hands of dangerous people? Are they afraid of their own anger-related love of guns?
9
what anger is this that you speak of? Is it that so many of you are arguing that gun owners are in the minority so our rights should not matter?
The psychology of self interest is deep and varied. Any object that takes on the aura of a cool toy, a utility tool, an extension of personal power and control, and a defense against the unspecified, unknown is second only to religion.
The crazy conundrum of "personal rights" and "laws/regulations" is that they both challenge the 'honor system' of human behavior, and interestingly "the honor system" leaves a spectrum of room between "right" and "wrong". In personal behavior, AND in business the idea of 'getting away with whatever you can' is seems to be an unwritten code. "Buyer beware", "innocent until proven guilty", and many of our laws and regulations (including the Constitution itself) seem intentionally designed to provide 'wiggle room' that enables both innovation AND corrupt behavior.
Arguably, the wiggle room is essential in order to enable innovation. And, in general, we ignore or accept the possibility that is might also enable criminal activity (on the premise that any given law or regulation could be too restrictive and thus deter the 'risk taking' that might be essential for innovation). Under this premise, corruption get a 'free ride' on the wiggle factor.
I don't know how we might achieve the perfect balance, but I'd venture to say that we're currently biased in favor of corruption aided and abetted by the idea that with the right amount of corrupt behavior anyone could become a billionaire.
The cold, hard fact is that, as with all things, happenstance dictates the ideal time and place for corrupt behavior, and the same formula doesn't work every time. One can't just be a crook. One must also be lucky.
Arguably, the wiggle room is essential in order to enable innovation. And, in general, we ignore or accept the possibility that is might also enable criminal activity (on the premise that any given law or regulation could be too restrictive and thus deter the 'risk taking' that might be essential for innovation). Under this premise, corruption get a 'free ride' on the wiggle factor.
I don't know how we might achieve the perfect balance, but I'd venture to say that we're currently biased in favor of corruption aided and abetted by the idea that with the right amount of corrupt behavior anyone could become a billionaire.
The cold, hard fact is that, as with all things, happenstance dictates the ideal time and place for corrupt behavior, and the same formula doesn't work every time. One can't just be a crook. One must also be lucky.
What a comfort to know that thought leaders at the NY times,Fox News,Wall Street Journal,NRA are available to inform us how to understand and Take action on this difficult issue.
2
It's an editorial. That's what an editorial is for.
1
Some of the suggestions the Times makes about gun control are certainly worth putting on the table. The Times suggestion that we use terror watch lists is not one of them. Indeed, one has to ask which Times editorial board we are listening to, the one that on 18 April 2014 called these lists " a violation of basic rights" (NY Times Editorial Board: "Terror Watch Lists Run Amok") or the recent one that castigated the GOP for not using this "violation of basic rights" against gun owners. The Times cannot have it both ways.
Gun crime is down in the US, but still far too high compared to other civilized nations. Indeed, most Americans have far more to worry about from domestic gang members, revolving door felons, and drug dealers all armed with handguns. The numbers of terrorist shootings pales compared to these domestic worries. In its distaste for guns, the Times is missing the forest for the trees.
Gun crime is down in the US, but still far too high compared to other civilized nations. Indeed, most Americans have far more to worry about from domestic gang members, revolving door felons, and drug dealers all armed with handguns. The numbers of terrorist shootings pales compared to these domestic worries. In its distaste for guns, the Times is missing the forest for the trees.
8
1. Laws can be AMENDED to correct insufficiencies in them -- none of which occurs to the law-illiterates who oppose gun control.
2. The Terrorist Watch List law is being misrepresented by the usual cast of liars: it ALREADY includes a process by means of which one can have one's name removed from the list.
3. "Responsible gun owners" don't want even that. Rather, they WANT terrorists and criminals to get guns LEGALLY as excuse to own guns against them.
2. The Terrorist Watch List law is being misrepresented by the usual cast of liars: it ALREADY includes a process by means of which one can have one's name removed from the list.
3. "Responsible gun owners" don't want even that. Rather, they WANT terrorists and criminals to get guns LEGALLY as excuse to own guns against them.
you are delusional if you believe this. Nobody wants weapons of any type to be used in commission of a crime. the man that sold the weapons to these people (strawman purchase) needs to go to prison as an accessory to each murder and injury sustained during the attack, he should also be looked at to see who else he might have purchased weapons for. the part that kills me is the FBI says that they knew that this couple had these weapons and that they were being tracked, where is the accountability for their failure?!
1
If you think it is "law illiterates" who oppose the terrorist watch list, then the ACLU and New York Times must both be law-illiterate. I take it you did not read the Op-Ed from last April? Or visit the ACLU site and read its criticisms of these lists? The gun owners rights community is not alone in its criticism of the lack of due process.
The system is largely secretive. Again, I suggest you read the Times editorial about the lady who remained on the watch list for a decade, with the government claiming secrecy when she sued to get off it. The ACLU recently said that in order for the terror watch list to be used in conjunction with the NICS list, it would have to be massively reformed. But the government cannot keep it secret and virtually immune from due process and at the same time use it to block a citizen from exercising an enumerated right.
Find me one responsible gun owner or gun organization wanting terrorists or criminals to own firearms. Just one. Yet another gross misrepresentation of the truth.
The system is largely secretive. Again, I suggest you read the Times editorial about the lady who remained on the watch list for a decade, with the government claiming secrecy when she sued to get off it. The ACLU recently said that in order for the terror watch list to be used in conjunction with the NICS list, it would have to be massively reformed. But the government cannot keep it secret and virtually immune from due process and at the same time use it to block a citizen from exercising an enumerated right.
Find me one responsible gun owner or gun organization wanting terrorists or criminals to own firearms. Just one. Yet another gross misrepresentation of the truth.
In truth it's anti gun laws that create these mass shootings ,look where they happen mostly in "gun free zones" a mass shooter doesn't have to worry about being stopped in Cali they shoot up that party and drove away till the police caught up with them more laws don't work
3
This is false. Many shootings took place in places where concealed carry is allowed. For example, Roseburg, Ore. In recent years 12 million americans have gotten permits. The only places the courts have blocked guns are ticketed events.
1
Pulled right off some NRA document of canned responses to gun violence. A mass shooting has never, ever been thwarted by someone with a concealed weapon. The only time it was attempted was during the Gabby Giffords shooting and the good guy with a gun nearly killed an innocent bystander. This is why law enforcement, other than a few sheriffs who seem to think we live in the Wild West, DO NOT advocate trying to be the hero in the midst of such a chaotic scene.
If you honestly think those bent on killing as many people as they can with their easy to obtain and always reliable semi-automatic rifles and body armor are worried about being stopped by some guy with a handgun who is not stunned by the surprise of the attack, you are fooling yourself.
If you honestly think those bent on killing as many people as they can with their easy to obtain and always reliable semi-automatic rifles and body armor are worried about being stopped by some guy with a handgun who is not stunned by the surprise of the attack, you are fooling yourself.
3
Actually, if you look at a breakdown of gun deaths by state, the more conservative/pro-guns states are the ones with the highest number of gun deaths per capita. For some reason.
1
thank you, and stay with this.
7
Far stricter gun control is INEVITABLE. It's only when that would happen. It may not happen at least until president Obama is no longer president.
Republicans would resist as much as they can until they start losing elections to gun-control activists. Then not a small factor is NRA's strongman.
Republicans would resist as much as they can until they start losing elections to gun-control activists. Then not a small factor is NRA's strongman.
5
Timing was perfect. We need to use every rational argument and tool to wake this country up to what is happening. The world is watching and we need to show that there are people here who can are willing to take a strong stand and disagree with our lobby-ran legislative arm. You made a right call and are making a change. Keep pushing and be vocal... every single piece helps. Thank you!
5
You can't believe the news anymore so what is the big deal about posting someone's unbelievable opinion on the front page. Please assign a guard to protect me and my family 24/7 when you finally succeed in abolishing the 2nd Amendment.
2
Thank you New York Times. Let the arc of History judge your editorial. It will, as it did in the past, bend away from the easy rhetoric of hate and violence.
2
"On the con side, there was the argument about separation of news and opinion."
I think your naivete' about how others perceive your 'separation of news and opinion' is telling.
I think your naivete' about how others perceive your 'separation of news and opinion' is telling.
14
Just because it's become de rigueur to conflate news and opinion doesn't mean The Times has to indulge in it. I read the Washington Post and The Times. It's startling how The Post presents opinion after opinion as fact. I honestly don't think the Editor understands the difference. And most the readers don't understand either having been fed a steady diet of television newstainment.
I suspect this issue has a great deal to do with the fact that many on the GOP side can't tell the difference between a fact--30 people a day die in gun related accidents or an opinion--getting rid of guns won't stop crime.
I suspect this issue has a great deal to do with the fact that many on the GOP side can't tell the difference between a fact--30 people a day die in gun related accidents or an opinion--getting rid of guns won't stop crime.
1
Typically editorials are opinion pieces. They weren't putting it as news, they just wanted their piece on the front page.
One of the ways to help stop bad guys from acquiring guns is to put the good guys against guns on the front page of the New York Times.
Well done and thank you.
Well done and thank you.
20
To quote Launa Hall, a W VA teacher, who wrote recently about lock down drills in her elementary school: It’s time to stop rehearsing our deaths and start screaming.
21
The association between 'nut cases' and gun owners is nothing but bigotry. The passion of guns owners is as old as our country. America, you exist today because of gun owners. The Green Mountain boys were not 'issued' firearms by the new nation. They brought their own. And, most importantly they were very accurate marksmen.
Gun controllers think that armed citizen defense of rights, property and freedom is naive and no longer necessary in the modern world. Perhaps this might be an argument if there were a 1,000 year absence of tyranny in the world. However, the Nazis ruled a mere 70 years ago. Putin? He is close enough to a being called a full blown tyrant. China? Suffice it to say, Chinese citizens have been disarmed. Nothing has changed in human nature since the founding of our country. Tyranny is a real and possible threat.
We know what gun controllers want. They want to disarm American citizens. That is why we fight tooth and nail to oppose it.
Times readers are avid history readers. Does anyone know if southern slaves were allowed to own firearms? Please post your answer so everyone can be fully informed.
Gun controllers think that armed citizen defense of rights, property and freedom is naive and no longer necessary in the modern world. Perhaps this might be an argument if there were a 1,000 year absence of tyranny in the world. However, the Nazis ruled a mere 70 years ago. Putin? He is close enough to a being called a full blown tyrant. China? Suffice it to say, Chinese citizens have been disarmed. Nothing has changed in human nature since the founding of our country. Tyranny is a real and possible threat.
We know what gun controllers want. They want to disarm American citizens. That is why we fight tooth and nail to oppose it.
Times readers are avid history readers. Does anyone know if southern slaves were allowed to own firearms? Please post your answer so everyone can be fully informed.
6
Reply to: Paul David Bell: I am indeed an avid history reader. For instance I can tell you that the 2cd Amendment was motivated by the British (and American) dislike of a standing army, and in particular the Quartering Acts of 1765 & 1774 whereby British soldiers were housed on colonists private property without their permission.
It is your history that could use some improvement. It is guns that kept slaves in slavery. If slaves had had guns, they would have certainly been overpowered and made victims of the weapons of their masters.
It is your history that could use some improvement. It is guns that kept slaves in slavery. If slaves had had guns, they would have certainly been overpowered and made victims of the weapons of their masters.
10
What line of thinking conflates slaves and guns? Both are abhorrent and should be abolished, though they both unfortunately still exist in this "modern" world.
2
"If slaves had had guns, they would have certainly been overpowered and made victims of the weapons of their masters."
So it's better that they were victims of their masters, than victims of the weapons of their masters?
Live Free or Die would have been a terrible slogan for an armed group of slaves attempting to escape. Are you still flying the Stars and Bars, bro?
So it's better that they were victims of their masters, than victims of the weapons of their masters?
Live Free or Die would have been a terrible slogan for an armed group of slaves attempting to escape. Are you still flying the Stars and Bars, bro?
1
It concerns me that the liberal media can misrepresent the truth about firearms, and the rest of us are just supposed to believe it. The rifles used in last week’s terrorist attack were NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS. They were clones of the Colt AR-15, which is the most popular sporting rifle in America, and has been for decades. The assault weapons scam on the American public was started years ago by Josh Sugerman from Handgun Control Incorporated. It was a campaign designed to confuse the public, who generally do not know a whole lot about guns. Sugerman started referring to these “ugly black rifles” as assault weapons because they looked, but did not shoot like some military weapons. This confusion was created to help with HCI attack on gun owners.
States like CA have some of the most restrictive gun laws in our country, but that didn’t make any difference whatsoever. Gun laws only effect the honest citizen and not the criminals. Criminals don’t obey the laws and they never will. What we need to do is work on the mental health aspect of this problem, and the immigration issue. Both of them will go a long way towards resolving the violence problem.
States like CA have some of the most restrictive gun laws in our country, but that didn’t make any difference whatsoever. Gun laws only effect the honest citizen and not the criminals. Criminals don’t obey the laws and they never will. What we need to do is work on the mental health aspect of this problem, and the immigration issue. Both of them will go a long way towards resolving the violence problem.
11
I am not trying to be confrontational, but merely looking for evidence to educate myself on all the facets of this issue. Could you let me know what data sources support the link between gun-deaths, mental health issues and immigration? thanks
3
I love the way the gun nuts always focus on the supposed misuse of the term "assault rifle" to try to distract us from the main point, which is these weapons' insane lethality. Yes, the guns used are semiautomatic clones of the AR-15, which was originally developed as a military weapon to replace the M-14, and as such was given to the U.S. military in a full auto version. So the only difference is the rate of fire. To try to characterize these as "sporting rifles" is ludicrous. And the reason they're so popular is that people who love guns love military-style weapons, as owning one feeds into the active fantasy life that so many gun owners seem to have.
9
This comment is so intellectually dishonest, that if it didn't contain the logical fallacies that are repeatedly trotted out by the gun lobby, it could be easily ignored. However, since these same disingenuous arguments are used over and over - it is important to address them.
"sporting rifle"
1. Arguing that the term "assault weapon" is a inaccurate label while simultaneously arguing that "sporting" is a more appropriate term is just ridiculous. Guns have a single purpose - destroying a target. "Sporting" is a euphemism designed to cloak gun-owning lunacy as some sort of national pastime.
"CA has some of the most restrictive gun laws, but that didn't make any difference."
1. You have no idea if it made a difference or not.
2. Because other states have more lax gun laws, it is still relatively easy to get guns in places like NY and CA, where the gun laws are more strict. However, then, this is not an argument against strict gun laws. In fact, it is an example of why much stronger federal laws are needed.
"Gun laws only affect the honest citizen and not the criminals"
1. That this is somehow an argument against laws is absurd, and it seems that simple-minded folks who will repeat this shrewd advertising campaign, ad nauseum.
2. Any law abiding citizen can purchase a gun and become a criminal/terrorist the next day. That is the exact problem -- in all of these mass shootings the guns were purchased legally. Laws are in our control - we can change them.
"sporting rifle"
1. Arguing that the term "assault weapon" is a inaccurate label while simultaneously arguing that "sporting" is a more appropriate term is just ridiculous. Guns have a single purpose - destroying a target. "Sporting" is a euphemism designed to cloak gun-owning lunacy as some sort of national pastime.
"CA has some of the most restrictive gun laws, but that didn't make any difference."
1. You have no idea if it made a difference or not.
2. Because other states have more lax gun laws, it is still relatively easy to get guns in places like NY and CA, where the gun laws are more strict. However, then, this is not an argument against strict gun laws. In fact, it is an example of why much stronger federal laws are needed.
"Gun laws only affect the honest citizen and not the criminals"
1. That this is somehow an argument against laws is absurd, and it seems that simple-minded folks who will repeat this shrewd advertising campaign, ad nauseum.
2. Any law abiding citizen can purchase a gun and become a criminal/terrorist the next day. That is the exact problem -- in all of these mass shootings the guns were purchased legally. Laws are in our control - we can change them.
29
Very interesting to read this behind-the-scenes look at how decisions are made in the world of journalism, and in particular, at the Times. Unfortunately, I disagreed with the concept of placing an opinion piece front and center where hard news belongs, and I still do -- even more so now after reading this.
I now see why the Times has taken such a hard-line, and often (in my opinion), misguided view on this issue: because your publisher instructed you to "go bananas" on all things guns. I wonder when, in your effort to execute your marching orders, you decided to blatantly veer towards position advocating instead of true reporting.
For example, in the past few days this paper has reported at length about the issue of banning people who have been placed on the federal no-fly list from obtaining guns. The Washington Post did a great blog update about how faulty, inefficient, and nearly unconstitutional the no-fly list is. However, no in-depth reporting like that has appeared within these pages to at least provide greater context to what the President proposed the other night. I don't expect this paper to oppose the President outright, but from a journalistic viewpoint I do expect a full and clear examination of his proposal.
As it turns out, the terrorists in San Bernadino were indeed Muslim extremists, and no gun control law would have prevented them from carrying out their deadly rampage. In a rush to take a moral stand, the Times' journalistic credibility has suffered.
I now see why the Times has taken such a hard-line, and often (in my opinion), misguided view on this issue: because your publisher instructed you to "go bananas" on all things guns. I wonder when, in your effort to execute your marching orders, you decided to blatantly veer towards position advocating instead of true reporting.
For example, in the past few days this paper has reported at length about the issue of banning people who have been placed on the federal no-fly list from obtaining guns. The Washington Post did a great blog update about how faulty, inefficient, and nearly unconstitutional the no-fly list is. However, no in-depth reporting like that has appeared within these pages to at least provide greater context to what the President proposed the other night. I don't expect this paper to oppose the President outright, but from a journalistic viewpoint I do expect a full and clear examination of his proposal.
As it turns out, the terrorists in San Bernadino were indeed Muslim extremists, and no gun control law would have prevented them from carrying out their deadly rampage. In a rush to take a moral stand, the Times' journalistic credibility has suffered.
6
Don't think of it as "position advocating", think of it as bringing facts to light:
1. We have many guns in this country that are exceedingly easy to buy even by the mentally disturbed.
2. We have a violence problem. No other developed country on Earth let's its' citizens murder themselves the way we do and it's not even close.
3. Make it harder to buy guns and you reduce number of guns in the hands of the bad guys and therefore the violence.
Cold, hard science isn't advocating for a particular position. This country needs to be reminded of these facts because they have become lost in the GOP propaganda and NRA lobbying that we've let pervert our political system. Thank you NYTimes for making an effort and please continue to do so.
1. We have many guns in this country that are exceedingly easy to buy even by the mentally disturbed.
2. We have a violence problem. No other developed country on Earth let's its' citizens murder themselves the way we do and it's not even close.
3. Make it harder to buy guns and you reduce number of guns in the hands of the bad guys and therefore the violence.
Cold, hard science isn't advocating for a particular position. This country needs to be reminded of these facts because they have become lost in the GOP propaganda and NRA lobbying that we've let pervert our political system. Thank you NYTimes for making an effort and please continue to do so.
3
Don't worry, PAC, the NYT's journalistic credibility has not suffered one iota, whether you believe it or not. The piece was clearly identified as an editorial. Nothing wrong with that.
Your note about the publisher's direction to "go bananas" wasn't about this incident. It was about Sandy Hook.
And the editorial wasn't about the president's speech (which had not occurred when the piece was published, in case you hadn't checked that), but about guns in America.
What was your point, really? Just an excuse to criticize? How about making a real point about a real issue, instead of railing about nothing?
Your note about the publisher's direction to "go bananas" wasn't about this incident. It was about Sandy Hook.
And the editorial wasn't about the president's speech (which had not occurred when the piece was published, in case you hadn't checked that), but about guns in America.
What was your point, really? Just an excuse to criticize? How about making a real point about a real issue, instead of railing about nothing?
1. The private citizen has no legal authority, and rarely has the competence in law, to declare laws -- especially laws they "coincidentally" oppose -- unconstitutional.
2. Laws can be AMENDED to cure insufficiencies. That includes the Terrorist Watch List. But you want to pretend, with the Republicans, that all of a sudden "due process" matters -- except when it comes to imposing the war crime of torture on alleged terrorists in order to persuade them that torture is wrong.
3. The law on the issue is misrepresented -- by gun-nuts. It already includes process by means of which one can have one's name removed from the list (unless, by law, it should remain).
4. gun-nuts don't want the law fixed: they want terrorists to be able to buy guns LEGALLY. Because they are so falsely opposed to mass-murderers with their favorite kinds of military weapons.
5. We are to be a CIVIL society. Military weapons -- assault weapons, bulletproof vests, body armor, armor-piercing ammunition -- do not belong in the hands of private citizens. There are no LEGITIMATE civilian uses for military weaponry.
2. Laws can be AMENDED to cure insufficiencies. That includes the Terrorist Watch List. But you want to pretend, with the Republicans, that all of a sudden "due process" matters -- except when it comes to imposing the war crime of torture on alleged terrorists in order to persuade them that torture is wrong.
3. The law on the issue is misrepresented -- by gun-nuts. It already includes process by means of which one can have one's name removed from the list (unless, by law, it should remain).
4. gun-nuts don't want the law fixed: they want terrorists to be able to buy guns LEGALLY. Because they are so falsely opposed to mass-murderers with their favorite kinds of military weapons.
5. We are to be a CIVIL society. Military weapons -- assault weapons, bulletproof vests, body armor, armor-piercing ammunition -- do not belong in the hands of private citizens. There are no LEGITIMATE civilian uses for military weaponry.
Thank you New York Times. The right to own a gun should not come at the expense of the safety of other citizens going about their daily activities.
Yes, there are plenty of safety conscious and responsible gun owners and these suggestions would not affect their ability to continue to do so but these laws would provide a level of safety for the rest of our citizens that does not exist today against those who are not responsible.
Yes, guns don't kill per se, just like automobiles don't kill all by themselves, but PEOPLE with guns do, just like bad driver's or drunk drivers, or driver's with road rage. And the mass killing that we have seen is just that - anger and rage out of control with a deadly weapon in their hands. That's what we have to address.
If you complain but do nothing – stop complaining. Otherwise become active, write letters to your congressmen and representatives at both the state and federal level. Let them know how strongly you feel about this and keep telling them. Be proactive in getting others involved before more innocent lives are lost. REMEMBER, with the current rash of catastrophes and inflamed public opinion we do have a chance at the voting booths. We tell our candidates that we will not vote for them unless they are willing to endorse strong gun safety laws. We need laws that require education, licensing, insurance and/or taxing - just like cars, for the protection of our citizens.
Yes, there are plenty of safety conscious and responsible gun owners and these suggestions would not affect their ability to continue to do so but these laws would provide a level of safety for the rest of our citizens that does not exist today against those who are not responsible.
Yes, guns don't kill per se, just like automobiles don't kill all by themselves, but PEOPLE with guns do, just like bad driver's or drunk drivers, or driver's with road rage. And the mass killing that we have seen is just that - anger and rage out of control with a deadly weapon in their hands. That's what we have to address.
If you complain but do nothing – stop complaining. Otherwise become active, write letters to your congressmen and representatives at both the state and federal level. Let them know how strongly you feel about this and keep telling them. Be proactive in getting others involved before more innocent lives are lost. REMEMBER, with the current rash of catastrophes and inflamed public opinion we do have a chance at the voting booths. We tell our candidates that we will not vote for them unless they are willing to endorse strong gun safety laws. We need laws that require education, licensing, insurance and/or taxing - just like cars, for the protection of our citizens.
14
Thank you, New York Times, for your civility, your downright honesty in doing your jobs every day, every year, with pluck and with a sense of your importance to the American scene.
Indeed, you are The Nation's Newspaper and to read you every day is a reminder of how good it is to be an American. I start every day by reading the Times.
Editorial on the front page? You bet, by God!
Indeed, you are The Nation's Newspaper and to read you every day is a reminder of how good it is to be an American. I start every day by reading the Times.
Editorial on the front page? You bet, by God!
20
Having just finished reading a heart-rending and mind-expanding biography of Joseph Pulitzer and his life-long passion for using journalism as a key to influencing the powers that be (himself included) to work for the common good by accurately proscribing the cause of jjustice through editorial prowess and perseverance, I must thank you for hearing his clarion call through the decades and continuing to be an advocate for your reading public.
7
I just want to say thank you for recognizing that the status quo responses to gun violence have become a bad joke and for sticking your neck out to do something a little different.
The excuses offered by the gun lobby are laughable. The modified military rifles are not hunting rifles, unless one is hunting humans. That said, they will be no match against the military of a tyrannical U.S. government that the gun crowd fears is brewing behind closed doors. The authors of the 2nd could have never envisioned what weapons have become or that an armed militia would never see the whites of the eyes of those launching rockets at them from hundreds of miles away. Being too lazy to reload at the range doesn't legitimize the "need" for large capacity magazines (and if you need them for hunting, you probably shouldn't be hunting). Self-defense? Seems we hear far more about how these guns are used in violent crimes or accidental deaths in the homes of "responsible gun owners" than being used to defend one's family or to thwart a mass killing. In fact, there has never been a mass shooting stopped by a good guy with a gun and even law enforcement acknowledges that it would likely lead to more casualties.
I married into a family with a strong hunting tradition. Not one of them fears their hunting rifles will be confiscated and they are all for stronger gun control. Closing loopholes and strengthening background checks will not prevent those who can legally own a gun from obtaining one.
The excuses offered by the gun lobby are laughable. The modified military rifles are not hunting rifles, unless one is hunting humans. That said, they will be no match against the military of a tyrannical U.S. government that the gun crowd fears is brewing behind closed doors. The authors of the 2nd could have never envisioned what weapons have become or that an armed militia would never see the whites of the eyes of those launching rockets at them from hundreds of miles away. Being too lazy to reload at the range doesn't legitimize the "need" for large capacity magazines (and if you need them for hunting, you probably shouldn't be hunting). Self-defense? Seems we hear far more about how these guns are used in violent crimes or accidental deaths in the homes of "responsible gun owners" than being used to defend one's family or to thwart a mass killing. In fact, there has never been a mass shooting stopped by a good guy with a gun and even law enforcement acknowledges that it would likely lead to more casualties.
I married into a family with a strong hunting tradition. Not one of them fears their hunting rifles will be confiscated and they are all for stronger gun control. Closing loopholes and strengthening background checks will not prevent those who can legally own a gun from obtaining one.
41
Can't swallow the whole apple at one time... Let's use the 80-20 Rule as a start. So let's see who's buying what... Then treat the certain obvious types like cars - require user ownership eligibility and registration rules for the 20% of the weapons causing 80% of the carnage...
3
"... people who oppose gun control measures often resort to violent imagery to make the point that they can be trusted to do the right thing with their firearms." Well, yes. We want to be able to defend ourselves against violence, and to use the best means available. That's why the second amendment was added to our constitution. But in a different sense, it can easily be said that proponents of gun control use violent imagery to make their point that citizens should not have guns. And the imagery they use is real, not imaginary. The imagery they use are exact examples of that which gun advocates want to protect us from. Their argument is perfectly rational. Choosing not to defend yourself against lethal violence is irrational, and believing that police will arrive in time to save you is naive.
3
You are tapping into the psyches of all the readers in print and online who are abhorred by the false prophets named Trump, Cruz et al. This particular reader is a "one issue" voter and you nailed my issue. I am a decendent of Noah Webster, who once started a newspaper in New York City before he published his dictionary, and I am proud that perhaps the most respected newspaper in the USA has taken the strong position people like me feel but have no like means to express. This was needed to counter the fear-mongering comments of the Rupert Murdoch media empire. As they say in the US Navy for a job well done: "Bravo Zulu." Keep up the effort. We have much to do.
19
I heard some arguments recently that in my opinion are very powerful. One of the arguments was as follows. About 30,000 people are killed by firearms each year in the US (Of these 20,000 are self-inflicted - i.e. suicides.) Let say we approve new gun regulations, and these regulations, as the detractors like to say, show not to work very well. The numbers of deaths are so staggering that even less-than-ideal regulations are bound to make a significant contribute. Fewer people killed, fewer families destroyed.
3
Make a gun statement every day on the front page until the country responds appropriately. We are being overrun by impassioned converts to violence who do not yet understand what it means to live in community.
24
The idea of making a statement every day mirrors the approach Walter Cronkite took with the Iran hostage crisis. It was pretty effective, as I recall.
3
Dear Editorial Board,
Thank you for continuing to hammer Congress on their long-standing inaction to seriously consider, assess, research, or take actions against violence and deaths caused by firearms in the US. Your focus on this topic is a testament to the importance of acting now on this issue.
While Congressmen and Congresswomen hedge and procrastinate, the Obama administration should immediately commission a blue ribbon panel to study and develop recommendations for comprehensive actions to reduce violence and deaths caused by firearms in the US. The Panel should include experts in firearms, law enforcement, social science, and other relevant areas, and develop its recommendations within 3 or 6 months.
To implement the recommendations, President Obama should immediately issue executive orders and deliver recommendations and potential legislation to the Hill and request potential legislation be included in Hill’s legislative agenda.
Once President Obama delivers such recommendations and legislation to the House and Senate, the President should exert maximum pressure on the Hill’s leadership to make sure these recommendations and potential legislation are quickly acted upon.
House and Senate leadership should be held accountable if they do not act quickly on these recommendations. All Senators and Representatives must have a voting record on this topic so that their position and voting records are known and can be widely circulated during election season.
Thank you for continuing to hammer Congress on their long-standing inaction to seriously consider, assess, research, or take actions against violence and deaths caused by firearms in the US. Your focus on this topic is a testament to the importance of acting now on this issue.
While Congressmen and Congresswomen hedge and procrastinate, the Obama administration should immediately commission a blue ribbon panel to study and develop recommendations for comprehensive actions to reduce violence and deaths caused by firearms in the US. The Panel should include experts in firearms, law enforcement, social science, and other relevant areas, and develop its recommendations within 3 or 6 months.
To implement the recommendations, President Obama should immediately issue executive orders and deliver recommendations and potential legislation to the Hill and request potential legislation be included in Hill’s legislative agenda.
Once President Obama delivers such recommendations and legislation to the House and Senate, the President should exert maximum pressure on the Hill’s leadership to make sure these recommendations and potential legislation are quickly acted upon.
House and Senate leadership should be held accountable if they do not act quickly on these recommendations. All Senators and Representatives must have a voting record on this topic so that their position and voting records are known and can be widely circulated during election season.
5
The front-page op-ed on guns in America was the voice of reason, expressing the predominantly held rational views of Americans.
In every society there are fringe groups that hold irrational beliefs unacceptable to the mainstream society. Such beliefs are naturally marginalized by their extremism and unpopularity. The problem in America today is mainstream America is being held in the grip of a fringe gun-culture group that has successfully imposed its extreme beliefs about guns on our larger society; mainstream beliefs have been unnaturally marginalized.
The root of this unnatural inversion is conservative judges on our Supreme Court. They have both misinterpreted the Second Amendment and elevated it to an inviolate holy scripture. So long as gun-culture groups can claim ownership of assault weapons as a birthright and we have a Supreme Court that validates that claim, we will not seriously address the gun epidemic and its consequences in America.
We need to focus attention on the failure of the Supreme Court to correctly read and interpret the Second Amendment. We need to replace justices who have a radical conservative ideology that disdainfully sacrifices the safety of Americans to foist the extreme beliefs of a few over the rational beliefs of the many.
In every society there are fringe groups that hold irrational beliefs unacceptable to the mainstream society. Such beliefs are naturally marginalized by their extremism and unpopularity. The problem in America today is mainstream America is being held in the grip of a fringe gun-culture group that has successfully imposed its extreme beliefs about guns on our larger society; mainstream beliefs have been unnaturally marginalized.
The root of this unnatural inversion is conservative judges on our Supreme Court. They have both misinterpreted the Second Amendment and elevated it to an inviolate holy scripture. So long as gun-culture groups can claim ownership of assault weapons as a birthright and we have a Supreme Court that validates that claim, we will not seriously address the gun epidemic and its consequences in America.
We need to focus attention on the failure of the Supreme Court to correctly read and interpret the Second Amendment. We need to replace justices who have a radical conservative ideology that disdainfully sacrifices the safety of Americans to foist the extreme beliefs of a few over the rational beliefs of the many.
15
Thank you for your courage. Although the Times cannot be compared with Charlie, you are up against a similar ignorant mentality - but Ignorance American Style. You know, "We have met the enemy..." Perhaps, just perhaps, The Online is Mightier than The Automatic.
3
Good editorial but why is the fact that it was published on the front page such a big deal that not only was it noted at the time as special but now we need to hear about the behind the scenes of this supposedly momentous event?
Content now outweighs any one placement. The 'front page' has not really mattered for several decades now.
Content now outweighs any one placement. The 'front page' has not really mattered for several decades now.
I applaud this effort by The NY Times. There needs to be greater, and continuous, public outcry after each mass shooting we experience far too often these days to try and effect change, and placing it front and center is imperative. If we have limits on the first amendment against speech that can incite violence, why doesn't it make sense to have limits on the 2nd amendment against weaponry designed with the sole purpose to kill, a lot of people? Australia put an end to mass killings. Why can't we?
10
Thank you, Times editorial staff, for taking a strong and reasoned stand towards curbing gun violence. Please continue to use the power of the NYTimes to counter the pro-gun culture that has so far succeeded in blocking the reasonable curbs your editorial suggests.
12
You did the right thing. Contrast US to UK, in the same week of alleged terror attacks, 14 die in US and 2 perpetrators are killed, 3 get stabbed in UK and the perpetrator is tazered. Would rather have the gun control like London than the killings with legally bought weapons like San Bernardino
13
The NYT has railed against firearms forever. Where is the fervor and outrage for the tens of thousands of deaths to men, women and children that occur daily, almost unnoticed, throughout America? Where is the same concern for all of the children who suffer head, spinal and internal injuries not to forget amputation of limbs, loss of vision and crushed spines?
Firearms are not the only means by which Americans are slaughtered, unnecessarily, every day. Automobile safety is just as much a pressing issue as the gun issue. And we could easily remedy the major cause of deaths and injuries by demanding better automobile safety, better highway engineering, switching to mass transit systems, and also taking teenagers off the road at night and raising the age for driver's licenses to at least age 18. Where is the front page editorial that finally declares that killing and maiming on our highways every day at a rate far greater than gun deaths, will not longer be tolerated?
I agree that too many nut cases have guns. Too many people who shouldn't have even a butter knife have easy access to AR 15s and other weapons.
But somehow the slaughter on the highways is forgotten and shoved aside. Automobile manufacturers have been given a get out jail card despite the carnage caused by known engineering defects. So too have tire manufacturers.
The president calls for people on the no-fly list to be denied rights to purchase guns. Agreed. Now put people on a no-drive list and enforce it.
Firearms are not the only means by which Americans are slaughtered, unnecessarily, every day. Automobile safety is just as much a pressing issue as the gun issue. And we could easily remedy the major cause of deaths and injuries by demanding better automobile safety, better highway engineering, switching to mass transit systems, and also taking teenagers off the road at night and raising the age for driver's licenses to at least age 18. Where is the front page editorial that finally declares that killing and maiming on our highways every day at a rate far greater than gun deaths, will not longer be tolerated?
I agree that too many nut cases have guns. Too many people who shouldn't have even a butter knife have easy access to AR 15s and other weapons.
But somehow the slaughter on the highways is forgotten and shoved aside. Automobile manufacturers have been given a get out jail card despite the carnage caused by known engineering defects. So too have tire manufacturers.
The president calls for people on the no-fly list to be denied rights to purchase guns. Agreed. Now put people on a no-drive list and enforce it.
1
As an emergency department physician I can tell you that deaths on the highway are dramatically down over the last few decades due to much better safety measures. It will never be zero as cars are dangerous and people drink alcohol and do drugs etc but driving is very important whereas guns and shooting has remarkably little purpose except to protect yourself from others with guns.
2
JohnLou Sacramento - Yes, deaths on the highway are down but still occur at a rate greater than 40,000 annually. And teenagers are the most at risk group. Also, drunk driving and driving under the influence of drugs or texting are not decreasing but are on the rise. Furthermore, bus accidents, farm riding equipment and motorcycles are excluded from auto data. The death and maiming goes on every day and every night.
When Ford Pinto autos burst into flame there was no outrage. When Ford Broncos and under-inflated tires caused more death, no one took notice. When Takata air bags cause more death again no one cared initially. And who went to jail for any of those deaths? Not to forget the GM fiasco over ignition switches where again, no one, not one engineer or executive went to prison. Where is the NYT front page outrage?
It doesn't exist. It doesn't exist even though far more people are maimed and killed on the highways than guns.
I deplore and I'm outraged by Sandy Hook. I'm disgusted by San Bernardino and all the senseless gun violence. We must get guns out of the hands of criminals. We also must protect the rights of law abiding citizens. Disarming the public will make all of us victims. Enforcing existing gun laws is more than enough. But, when radicalized Islamists attack I want my HK VP 9 and my AR 15. The radicals will do it again and again. I will not be a victim. Nor will my neighbors. This is not 1956 and Ozzie and Harriet no longer exist. The world has changed
When Ford Pinto autos burst into flame there was no outrage. When Ford Broncos and under-inflated tires caused more death, no one took notice. When Takata air bags cause more death again no one cared initially. And who went to jail for any of those deaths? Not to forget the GM fiasco over ignition switches where again, no one, not one engineer or executive went to prison. Where is the NYT front page outrage?
It doesn't exist. It doesn't exist even though far more people are maimed and killed on the highways than guns.
I deplore and I'm outraged by Sandy Hook. I'm disgusted by San Bernardino and all the senseless gun violence. We must get guns out of the hands of criminals. We also must protect the rights of law abiding citizens. Disarming the public will make all of us victims. Enforcing existing gun laws is more than enough. But, when radicalized Islamists attack I want my HK VP 9 and my AR 15. The radicals will do it again and again. I will not be a victim. Nor will my neighbors. This is not 1956 and Ozzie and Harriet no longer exist. The world has changed
1
I applaud the publication of the editorial on page 1 although I'd already read it online before the print copy arrived. And yes, it's important to separate news and opinion. But there are some things that are so obvious that they can hardly be called opinion, and some so common they can't really be called news. However, the overwhelming influence of right-wing media on American "news" is so damaging to the democratic process that it's hard to imagine that one editorial in the hated NYT will make a real difference.
Please keep trying.
We're told that the free market can solve all problems. We might try telling that to the bereaved in San Bernardino or Sandy Hook.
Please keep trying.
We're told that the free market can solve all problems. We might try telling that to the bereaved in San Bernardino or Sandy Hook.
4
Thank you for your continued sanity about this issue, and so many others. You validated the passionate views of those of us who support a robust gun-control plan in a way that will be read and discussed throughout the country and around the world. Let's hope that intelligence and reason will have a fair hearing, and ultimately prevail.
3
well done NYT. absolutely applaud the coverage and importance you've placed on this issue.
14
Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Rosenthal in particular and The Times in general deserve a great deal of admiration for not only fighting the good fight against rampaging gun violence, but doing so boldly -- with what the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. called "the fierce urgency of now."
But will it do any good? Sadly, no. If the slaughter of 20 first-graders and six educators at a school in Newtown didn't stir the collective conscience of the nation into acting on a moral imperative, nothing ever will. We're almost at the point of a Massacre of the Week. Seemingly routine.
Charleston, Colorado Springs, San Bernardino, you name it; the almost seamless sequence of savagery simply piles on to what long ago became an appalling body count. Just another number. So much so that we've become desensitized.
Rather than a government of the people, by the people and for the people, we've settled for one that has sold its soul and knuckled under to the perverse agenda of the National Rifle Association. As shameful as it is tragic.
We've become defined by our gun culture, leaving all but a tiny fraction of the rest of the world aghast. American exceptionalism indeed.
But will it do any good? Sadly, no. If the slaughter of 20 first-graders and six educators at a school in Newtown didn't stir the collective conscience of the nation into acting on a moral imperative, nothing ever will. We're almost at the point of a Massacre of the Week. Seemingly routine.
Charleston, Colorado Springs, San Bernardino, you name it; the almost seamless sequence of savagery simply piles on to what long ago became an appalling body count. Just another number. So much so that we've become desensitized.
Rather than a government of the people, by the people and for the people, we've settled for one that has sold its soul and knuckled under to the perverse agenda of the National Rifle Association. As shameful as it is tragic.
We've become defined by our gun culture, leaving all but a tiny fraction of the rest of the world aghast. American exceptionalism indeed.
12
Good editorial but you missed the underlying imperative that drives the gun culture: a sector of white men in American society are arming for a war. They fear blacks and Hispanics may end their electoral dominance and may loot and riot which will require heavy firepower to overcome (in their minds). Constant government demonization from the far right drives the need for firepower in case the demographically changing government comes for their guns. A sector of American police are already waging that war on black men. This explains seemingly inexplicable recent shootings that justifies ridding suspects with overwhelming firepower. Gun violence and political intransigence on gun laws will continue until this sector of white males regain reason and come out from their bunkers. The Confederate impulse lives.
2
Thank you for taking this stand.
I live in Oakland, CA in a wonderful, diverse, walkable neighborhood. I don't live in fear, and see no need to have a firearm at the ready, too many family members are hurt (or worse) in homes with loaded firearms. I really see no need for an automatic weapon. Moreover, don't understand what so many folks are frightened of, especially the conservatives that live in suburban, or rural communities that are mostly white. Are they afraid of people like themselves?
I live in Oakland, CA in a wonderful, diverse, walkable neighborhood. I don't live in fear, and see no need to have a firearm at the ready, too many family members are hurt (or worse) in homes with loaded firearms. I really see no need for an automatic weapon. Moreover, don't understand what so many folks are frightened of, especially the conservatives that live in suburban, or rural communities that are mostly white. Are they afraid of people like themselves?
3
Why don't you guys report the news instead of propagandizing your liberal, progressive, socialist ideology?
2
Look at the front page off the NY times for the day I was born July 29th 1969....how long will we continue to talk about gun control?
nothing is changing... Unless everyone gets an education...or buys out Fox News!
nothing is changing... Unless everyone gets an education...or buys out Fox News!
2
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I was on the fence, but i'e just renewed my subscription. Please keep it up!
2
Thank you for this big, bold, right move. Doubtless you are aware of the old E.F. Hutton TV ads: "When E.F. Hutton talks, people listen." When the Times speaks, people listen.
There is no easy answer, no single cure for this gun epidemic we are living through. We can't make all the guns go away, and we can't arm everybody. Nor should we, in either case. But limits on who can buy what guns are not going to infringe anybody's gun "rights."
People already on terrorist watch lists should not be able to buy guns. Nor should people whose mental illnesses have been diagnosed, nor should convicted felons or abusers.
No civilian needs an automatic weapon, or even a semi-automatic one. These are military weapons designed to kill a large number of people very quickly. They should not be available to anybody except the armed forces.
I keep hoping that the sane, rational members of the N.R.A. - and there are some - will come forward and make the herculean effort to bring their wild-eyed brethren to their senses. I hope this editorial might give at least a few of them the courage to start.
There is no easy answer, no single cure for this gun epidemic we are living through. We can't make all the guns go away, and we can't arm everybody. Nor should we, in either case. But limits on who can buy what guns are not going to infringe anybody's gun "rights."
People already on terrorist watch lists should not be able to buy guns. Nor should people whose mental illnesses have been diagnosed, nor should convicted felons or abusers.
No civilian needs an automatic weapon, or even a semi-automatic one. These are military weapons designed to kill a large number of people very quickly. They should not be available to anybody except the armed forces.
I keep hoping that the sane, rational members of the N.R.A. - and there are some - will come forward and make the herculean effort to bring their wild-eyed brethren to their senses. I hope this editorial might give at least a few of them the courage to start.
2
"Our publisher felt it was the right time to make a big and loud statement about guns, and chose a bold and exciting way to do it"
Are you apologizing for your decision now because you went too far?
You are fond of making the same emotional argument, "That might not have prevented the San Bernardino shooting (a common argument which we’ve heard a lot in recent days), but at least..." and previously "But at least those countries are trying."
I would like to suggest you drop the phrase "but at least" from your lexicon.
Are you apologizing for your decision now because you went too far?
You are fond of making the same emotional argument, "That might not have prevented the San Bernardino shooting (a common argument which we’ve heard a lot in recent days), but at least..." and previously "But at least those countries are trying."
I would like to suggest you drop the phrase "but at least" from your lexicon.
2
Mr. Arthur Sulzberger, please allow me to tell you about myself and then I have a question for you.
I am 64 years old, I am as clean and pure as the wind-driven snow as far as any criminal activity. I've not had even a traffic violation in 30 years. Not even a parking ticket.
I own several firearms and have a license to carry concealed. I appreciate this license as occasionally I am in a situation where I feel the concealed firearm that I carry could possibly protect me from great bodily harm.
My question to you Mr. Sulzberger: Do you wish for the government to take away my right to own and legally carry my firearm?
I am 64 years old, I am as clean and pure as the wind-driven snow as far as any criminal activity. I've not had even a traffic violation in 30 years. Not even a parking ticket.
I own several firearms and have a license to carry concealed. I appreciate this license as occasionally I am in a situation where I feel the concealed firearm that I carry could possibly protect me from great bodily harm.
My question to you Mr. Sulzberger: Do you wish for the government to take away my right to own and legally carry my firearm?
1
No one is suggesting that the government take away guns from law abiding citizens. However, they certainly should be taken away from those who exhibit extreme carelessness, such as parents leaving loaded guns lying around where young children can get their hands on them, felons with convictions which includ weapons charges, those convicted of physical spousal or child abuse, mental illness, terroristic threats and activity, etc.
2
I noticed this after about three articles. I began cursing that the Times had decided to ride the gun issue as it's new hobby horse. Mr Rosanthal does not seem to be able to recall how his elders, immediately after the assassination ofg President John Kennedy and then, some few years later, of his Brother and of Dr. Martin Luther King decide the Times was going to make easy purchase of guns via magazines and the mails impossible. SInce then it is no longer easy to purchase older, surplus long guns and pistos through the mail from ads in monthly magazines . But since the 1960's gun violence has increased-not decreased-!
In fact, everything the Times and the anti-gun agents have wrought has ended much like prohibition: for all the talk and all the l;aws, there are now MORE guns, MORE bullets and MORE killings in the US than ever before. Laws like stand your ground have made murder all but legal in many red, or Souther and formerly Confederate states. Of those not confederate and not southern the bleed-in of Southerners and their attitudes into Indiana and Kansas and such formerly "Northern" states, has led to a growth of violence and violent ways of dealing with all social ills.
Every step the NY Times encourages the states to take seems to make them desire to run in the opposite direction. I think it's time to leave the states and their retrograde activities alone-let the blood do the talking as they don't want to listen. Let'em watch.
In fact, everything the Times and the anti-gun agents have wrought has ended much like prohibition: for all the talk and all the l;aws, there are now MORE guns, MORE bullets and MORE killings in the US than ever before. Laws like stand your ground have made murder all but legal in many red, or Souther and formerly Confederate states. Of those not confederate and not southern the bleed-in of Southerners and their attitudes into Indiana and Kansas and such formerly "Northern" states, has led to a growth of violence and violent ways of dealing with all social ills.
Every step the NY Times encourages the states to take seems to make them desire to run in the opposite direction. I think it's time to leave the states and their retrograde activities alone-let the blood do the talking as they don't want to listen. Let'em watch.
1
So basically, in the wake of terrible homegrown terrorist attack, you're advocating to disarm the American law abiding populace?
Leftists are truly confused.
Leftists are truly confused.
2
Uhm, most sane individuals recognize that we have a well-trained military, a well trained national guard, and well-trained police forces.
A bunch of yahoos with guns, visions of glory based on Hollywood films, and testosterone-enhancing NRA propaganda / fear mongering, are not going to protect anyone. Quite to the contrary, they're a clear and present danger to the safety of our communities, if not the country as a whole.
This isn't about law-abiding citizens - it's about easily-influenced minds who've become convinced by opportunistic lobbies (such as the NRA) and their masters (the arms manufacturers) that the only way to protect oneself and the country is to buy ever more guns.
Who's the victim here - those advocating sane regulations or those who are purchasing expensive killing devices because they have a hero complex underpinned by raw fear?
A bunch of yahoos with guns, visions of glory based on Hollywood films, and testosterone-enhancing NRA propaganda / fear mongering, are not going to protect anyone. Quite to the contrary, they're a clear and present danger to the safety of our communities, if not the country as a whole.
This isn't about law-abiding citizens - it's about easily-influenced minds who've become convinced by opportunistic lobbies (such as the NRA) and their masters (the arms manufacturers) that the only way to protect oneself and the country is to buy ever more guns.
Who's the victim here - those advocating sane regulations or those who are purchasing expensive killing devices because they have a hero complex underpinned by raw fear?
2
So does that mean that the 21.8 million veterans should still be allowed to carry weapons since they are so well trained?
Excellent decision! I thank you all from the bottom of my heart!!!
3
Thank you NYT editorial board for taking a public stance against what is clearly an idea gone mad. In the gun lobby, the nuts have clearly taken over the insane asylum.
As for the NRA, this might be a good way to sum it up: enabling domestic terrorism since 1871.
As for the NRA, this might be a good way to sum it up: enabling domestic terrorism since 1871.
3
Thank you. Don't let up. You mentioned insurrection in your editorial. I believe this is the NRA's ultimate aim. Hunting, gun collecting, target shooting, and self defense are just eyewash. These firearms are being amassed for offense, not defense, and we have yet to acknowledge the yearning on the far right for an insurrection-and a bloodbath.
6
It is past due for the NYT to vent their anger and frustration about all the guns out there in our beloved country.
It is even more past due for all reasonable Americans to do the same!
Until we can get guns under control, we will continue to have almost 100 Americans die from gun violence each and every day----and to have twice that number significantly injured.
****A Connecticut physician
It is even more past due for all reasonable Americans to do the same!
Until we can get guns under control, we will continue to have almost 100 Americans die from gun violence each and every day----and to have twice that number significantly injured.
****A Connecticut physician
12
Mr. Rosenthal,
Random thoughts: While I applaud the NYT and you for running this editorial I firmly believe that as long as we keep referring to it as "gun control" we are not going to move the needle that much. As you all know more than most others, words have power.
Rather, I propose here and now that the NYT and all sane media start calling it what it is: moves to prevent and/or reduce gun violence. aka gun violence prevention/reduction.
Let us learn from the right with their hijacking of so much of our national discourse where even many on the left use the terms they came up with: political correctness, partial birth abortion, quotas, Democrat Party.
I also propose that (if it has not been done already) someone take shots of the shockingly standard stages of images after such shootings: blood, bodies, first responders, ambulances, fire trucks, police cars, survivors with their hands in the air, makeshift shrines with flowers, notes, candles, teddy bears, candle light vigils, funerals. But take them from many different ones and have them flash by on a black screeen. At the end, ask what all these images have in common: guns.
It speaks volumes about the madness on the right that the self identified "true patriotic real American Christians" have no problem with terrorists and people on no fly lists being able to buy guns bc Oh no! that would be the start of a slippery slope.
Anyone notice how Mr. LaPierre and his thugs go silent each time there is a tragedy like this?
Random thoughts: While I applaud the NYT and you for running this editorial I firmly believe that as long as we keep referring to it as "gun control" we are not going to move the needle that much. As you all know more than most others, words have power.
Rather, I propose here and now that the NYT and all sane media start calling it what it is: moves to prevent and/or reduce gun violence. aka gun violence prevention/reduction.
Let us learn from the right with their hijacking of so much of our national discourse where even many on the left use the terms they came up with: political correctness, partial birth abortion, quotas, Democrat Party.
I also propose that (if it has not been done already) someone take shots of the shockingly standard stages of images after such shootings: blood, bodies, first responders, ambulances, fire trucks, police cars, survivors with their hands in the air, makeshift shrines with flowers, notes, candles, teddy bears, candle light vigils, funerals. But take them from many different ones and have them flash by on a black screeen. At the end, ask what all these images have in common: guns.
It speaks volumes about the madness on the right that the self identified "true patriotic real American Christians" have no problem with terrorists and people on no fly lists being able to buy guns bc Oh no! that would be the start of a slippery slope.
Anyone notice how Mr. LaPierre and his thugs go silent each time there is a tragedy like this?
3
When people use a term like "thug" for everything under the sun it become meaningless, as is currently happening with "bully.'
1
It was very clear that the focus of your editorial was gun control, not terror control. Any connection between gun control and stopping terror attacks is speculative, as you admit. A reasonable conclusion therefore is that you are taking advantage of a terror event to renew your push for gun control, an issue your publisher is 'particularly incensed about'. A bit opportunistic perhaps but his paper, his agenda.
But as long as you are trying to tie terrorism to lack of gun control why don't you look at an actual policy that might have prevented the San Bernardino killings; the government surveillance techniques, including NSA phone surveillance programs, that were cut back earlier this year. You editorialized in favor of restricting government access to phone records, choosing privacy 'rights' over increased surveillance of suspected terrorists. In your front page editorial Saturday you argued that law abiding citizens might be forced to give up their guns "for the good of their fellow citizens". Might the same be said for protecting phone records? Or is it more important to satisfy the wishes of your publisher and call for meaningless sacrifices by gun owners than to respect the wishes of law enforcement officials and support efforts that would actually improve the fight against terrorism?
Assuming, of course, there is some interest on your part in reducing the likelihood of domestic terror attacks that doesn't involve gun confiscation.
But as long as you are trying to tie terrorism to lack of gun control why don't you look at an actual policy that might have prevented the San Bernardino killings; the government surveillance techniques, including NSA phone surveillance programs, that were cut back earlier this year. You editorialized in favor of restricting government access to phone records, choosing privacy 'rights' over increased surveillance of suspected terrorists. In your front page editorial Saturday you argued that law abiding citizens might be forced to give up their guns "for the good of their fellow citizens". Might the same be said for protecting phone records? Or is it more important to satisfy the wishes of your publisher and call for meaningless sacrifices by gun owners than to respect the wishes of law enforcement officials and support efforts that would actually improve the fight against terrorism?
Assuming, of course, there is some interest on your part in reducing the likelihood of domestic terror attacks that doesn't involve gun confiscation.
1
Thank you NYT, for highlighting that the preventable epidemic of gun violence has to be a priority. It's time to expose the gun makers who blatantly advertise assault-style weapons as mass killing machines for civilians, while funding the NRA to stoke fear and keep the market growing
http://www.vpc.org/studies/militarization.pdf
http://www.vpc.org/studies/militarization.pdf
4
I hope the editorial staff of the NYT will continue to "howl into a raging storm" that there are too many guns in the US. The sheer quantity of guns is by itself a serious and urgent problem to be confronted. That the number of guns reflects a carefully inflamed distrust of federal and state authority by irresponsible political interests is a national emergency. If our current murders are a raging storm, then the hurricane is coming.
I understand the methods used in Australia and in Scotland after their citizens decided the cost of murder by gun was unbearable will not be easy or popular to implement in the US. However, it is important to begin the debate about taking actions which will reduce the number of guns in the US.
It is time to use the resources of large purchasers of military-grade weapons and ammunition--US military, allied military groups, law enforcement agencies--to reduce the number of weapons of mass murder in the hands of those our society does not and should not authorize to use weapons of war.
The fantasy that the gun manufacturers have created that the US government could--and should--be defeated through armed insurrection when any group of people dislike what their elected government does needs to be challenged or the terrorism inspired by foreign interests will pale beside that which has captured the imaginations of thousands who are building significant arsenals to use against their own government when they have been inflamed enough.
I understand the methods used in Australia and in Scotland after their citizens decided the cost of murder by gun was unbearable will not be easy or popular to implement in the US. However, it is important to begin the debate about taking actions which will reduce the number of guns in the US.
It is time to use the resources of large purchasers of military-grade weapons and ammunition--US military, allied military groups, law enforcement agencies--to reduce the number of weapons of mass murder in the hands of those our society does not and should not authorize to use weapons of war.
The fantasy that the gun manufacturers have created that the US government could--and should--be defeated through armed insurrection when any group of people dislike what their elected government does needs to be challenged or the terrorism inspired by foreign interests will pale beside that which has captured the imaginations of thousands who are building significant arsenals to use against their own government when they have been inflamed enough.
3
The editorial takes a bold position that I have not heard before: not only control the sale and ownership of guns, but actually require owners of assault weapons to turn them in! It is also a bold move to put this editorial on the front page.
Good start, NY Times. What comes next?
The movie, Spotlight, had a brilliant idea about how to tackle systemic corruption. Don't focus just on individual cases. Those get buried in the back pages. Go after the system itself. Boston Globe reporters got the whole country to wake up to the unthinkable, and long buried, issue of clergy abuse of children, by looking at the system as a whole: top-down, bottom-up, world-wide. Translating that to gun violence, focus on the system of mutual hand washing between politicians, gun
manufacturers, gun owners, NRA. In his article on journalism in the New York Review of Books, Michael Massing writes: News organizations need to develop a new methodology that can allow them to document the structure of wealth, power, and influence in America--to show how the ultrarich make their money, what they do with it, and to what effect." Applying that to the gun problem, I would like to see how money moves between individual politicians and the gun establishment, specific names and numbers printed frequently on the first page. Making such information public might have made it a bit harder for all Republican senators except Mark Kirk to vote against the Feinstein bill.
Good start, NY Times. What comes next?
The movie, Spotlight, had a brilliant idea about how to tackle systemic corruption. Don't focus just on individual cases. Those get buried in the back pages. Go after the system itself. Boston Globe reporters got the whole country to wake up to the unthinkable, and long buried, issue of clergy abuse of children, by looking at the system as a whole: top-down, bottom-up, world-wide. Translating that to gun violence, focus on the system of mutual hand washing between politicians, gun
manufacturers, gun owners, NRA. In his article on journalism in the New York Review of Books, Michael Massing writes: News organizations need to develop a new methodology that can allow them to document the structure of wealth, power, and influence in America--to show how the ultrarich make their money, what they do with it, and to what effect." Applying that to the gun problem, I would like to see how money moves between individual politicians and the gun establishment, specific names and numbers printed frequently on the first page. Making such information public might have made it a bit harder for all Republican senators except Mark Kirk to vote against the Feinstein bill.
4
Its too bad that left or right somebody always wants to take away our rights.
Not at all! Just the rights of terrorists and people who are not responsible enough to have guns. And NOBODY should have a right to own an assault-style weapon. It has no place in civilian society.
1
the "assault style weapon" is a bit redundant don't you think. I mean weren't all weapons designed for assault? I think you mean to focus on select fire weapons, which are a class three firearms and require heavy government over-site and licensing to purchase as it is.
2
What about the rights of the majority of US citizens to be safe as they engage in the normal and peaceful activities of daily living? As far as I am concerned, the safety rights of the majority far outweighs the gun toting rights of the minority!
2
Hear!! Hear!! And Bravo.You people are speaking to the America I hail from.
2
I applaud The Times' action in putting this editorial on the front page, and I wholeheartedly endorse the points it makes. There are too many guns - by far - in the U.S., and their ready availability does not make us any safer. I am grateful that much of the time, I live in New York City, where open and concealed carry are not options.
Please continue to add your strong voice to the efforts to control the proliferation of guns, particularly high-capacity "assault weapons," which no private citizen can have a reason to own, and those to people on "no-fly" or other watch lists or those with a history of mental illness. Thank you for your strong stance on this issue.
Please continue to add your strong voice to the efforts to control the proliferation of guns, particularly high-capacity "assault weapons," which no private citizen can have a reason to own, and those to people on "no-fly" or other watch lists or those with a history of mental illness. Thank you for your strong stance on this issue.
3
"It’s interesting in a very sad way that people who oppose gun control measures often resort to violent imagery to make the point that they can be trusted to do the right thing with their firearms. “Let me buy any gun I want to defend myself, or I’ll shoot you” is not a rational argument."
Agreed. People who take that view are unlikely to persuade anyone and instead make themselves look crazy. Unfortunately, and I'm hope I'm forever wrong, I would not be surprised if some yahoo took it upon himself/ herself/ themselves to shoot first and ask questions later should any politicians or groups manage to pass legislation banning semi-automatic weapons.
Someone else in the 'no-fly" article suggested that a memorial with empty space be put up right across the NRA's hdqtrs. in DC to remind/ shame them. I agree with that.
Agreed. People who take that view are unlikely to persuade anyone and instead make themselves look crazy. Unfortunately, and I'm hope I'm forever wrong, I would not be surprised if some yahoo took it upon himself/ herself/ themselves to shoot first and ask questions later should any politicians or groups manage to pass legislation banning semi-automatic weapons.
Someone else in the 'no-fly" article suggested that a memorial with empty space be put up right across the NRA's hdqtrs. in DC to remind/ shame them. I agree with that.
2
All well and good. But you could make an entire edition of a New York Times an editorial, and it wouldn't do any good. Why? Read today's news this week's news that the Supreme Court refuses to hear court cases about assault weapons bans. Feckless politicians are more interested in fund raising and reelection than risking political capital. The NRA ruthlessly dispatches politicians who dare oppose their money lobby. If the killing of a kindergarten full of children resulted in nothing, do you really think an opinion written by one man and placed on one front page of one newspaper really matters? I shudder to think a Constitutional Convention is long overdue, as that itself would pose enormous risks, as any proposition could be tabled and acted upon.
3
A constitutional convention would not be required. An amendment to the Constitution would be adequate if it could get passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the President and ratified by state governments.....which immediately eliminates all southern states. They clearly have not eaten enough of their young at this time to accept gun controls.
I should have added that a Constitution Convention might include a permanent removal of money, both individual and corporate, from the electoral process.
1
There is quite a dose of navel-gazing and self-congratulation here. A huge dose, to be fair.
This is a very disappointing story. I'd expect the Times to be interested in something more than moral posturing, but that's all the editorial accomplished. "well, we said it, we're good people, we're better than other people, so who cars if our ideas would never solve the problem."
There are 300,000,000 guns in this country. OF course its insane. But its a fact. Any drunk in a bar can have an opinion. We deserve more from the Times. If the vapid ideas in the editorial were enacted, they do nothing to adress the massive volume of guns. And if you can't come up with an idea to deal with the facts, you're just posturing, venting, ranting.
Like a drunk at a bar.
This is a very disappointing story. I'd expect the Times to be interested in something more than moral posturing, but that's all the editorial accomplished. "well, we said it, we're good people, we're better than other people, so who cars if our ideas would never solve the problem."
There are 300,000,000 guns in this country. OF course its insane. But its a fact. Any drunk in a bar can have an opinion. We deserve more from the Times. If the vapid ideas in the editorial were enacted, they do nothing to adress the massive volume of guns. And if you can't come up with an idea to deal with the facts, you're just posturing, venting, ranting.
Like a drunk at a bar.
1
What do you recommend the NY Times should do? What they do best is inform the public about the facts. They can't spread money around the House and Senate the way the NRA does. A representative or senator can't pocket the facts but they can pocket money and the NRA has bought many a luxury item for them.
1
I believe that the average profits of the NYT is around $200,000,000 annually so they can in fact buy politicians if that is what they would like to do.
Bravo to the NYT for the front page editorial on the proliferation of guns in our country. Hopefully, it would sway some people, to the sensible way of eventually doing away with guns and making this nation safer for its citizens.
As a matter of fact, just today, there was a terrorist attack in a London subway. The perpetrator used a knife, stabbed 2 people, none of them seriously and was eventually tazered by the police and captured. can you imagine what would have happened if that man was in this side of the pond? He would have had a semi-automatic and shot at least two dozen people, killing half of them. How can anyone not see the foolishness of supporting the gun manufacturers? For the safety of our children, vote for the one that will promise to inact sensible legislation as first order of business, upon entering office
As a matter of fact, just today, there was a terrorist attack in a London subway. The perpetrator used a knife, stabbed 2 people, none of them seriously and was eventually tazered by the police and captured. can you imagine what would have happened if that man was in this side of the pond? He would have had a semi-automatic and shot at least two dozen people, killing half of them. How can anyone not see the foolishness of supporting the gun manufacturers? For the safety of our children, vote for the one that will promise to inact sensible legislation as first order of business, upon entering office
11
Good reporting and editorials on gun violence are not getting through to the antagonists. As long as the NRA and Republican-right can wrap themselves in the flag while engaged in muck-raking against anything this President says and dose the message gets drowned-out. It's show-time in America. Stakes are high. The Republican presidential candidate that can shout the loudest and appear the meanest may actually win the nomination. Not to worry. The 1% and their underlings and allies in the political-industrial complex will not let America fail whoever is in the Oval office.
It's all about the money that greases electoral candidates on the path to a seat in Congress or the Oval Office. No money, less chance of winning. Gun violence? As long as it happens outside the businesses, neighborhoods and play areas of the rich and famous there is a lower chance that American Business interests would engage a public fight against the NRA and ts aligned communities across the country. Too much risk. Much easier to fund healthcare research or mitigating poverty. The proof is that The Gates Foundation doesn't have a big a presence in interdiction of gun violence and neither does, so far, the Zuckerbergs. Can the NYT publish any material funds from the nation's wealthiest families philanthropy foundations that are funding anti-gun legislation, education and anti-lobby targeting the NRA and candidates that promote gun ownership?
It's all about the money that greases electoral candidates on the path to a seat in Congress or the Oval Office. No money, less chance of winning. Gun violence? As long as it happens outside the businesses, neighborhoods and play areas of the rich and famous there is a lower chance that American Business interests would engage a public fight against the NRA and ts aligned communities across the country. Too much risk. Much easier to fund healthcare research or mitigating poverty. The proof is that The Gates Foundation doesn't have a big a presence in interdiction of gun violence and neither does, so far, the Zuckerbergs. Can the NYT publish any material funds from the nation's wealthiest families philanthropy foundations that are funding anti-gun legislation, education and anti-lobby targeting the NRA and candidates that promote gun ownership?
2
In February 1968, on the heels of the Tet offensive, Walter Cronkite could contain himself no longer. The avuncular, veteran news anchor, known for his reassuring manner, unfailing credibility and judicious reportage, declared that the war in Vietnam was unwinnable. President Johnson reportedly said, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America." Cronkite felt compelled to speak from his heart, aware of the potential consequences to himself, to the war effort, and to the President. The following month, Johnson stunned the nation by announcing that he would not run for re-election. Cronkite's 3-minute statement was a seminal moment in American broadcast journalism.
The New York Times is to be congratulated for favoring integrity, decency and an abiding concern for the greater good of our country, over the false equivalence that increasingly permeates American journalism, especially from progressive-leaning news media who have been cowed by the increasingly rabid right into bending over backwards to be "fair and balanced" when, in fact, there is no rational basis for "balance."
With all that has happened in the 95 years since the last front-page editorial appeared in the Times (about Harding!), it is so very gratifying that the issue of gun violence and control should be placed front and center.
Thank you, to my favorite newspaper, for your beautiful front-page editorial. I am going to have it framed, and hang it prominently in my home and work-place.
The New York Times is to be congratulated for favoring integrity, decency and an abiding concern for the greater good of our country, over the false equivalence that increasingly permeates American journalism, especially from progressive-leaning news media who have been cowed by the increasingly rabid right into bending over backwards to be "fair and balanced" when, in fact, there is no rational basis for "balance."
With all that has happened in the 95 years since the last front-page editorial appeared in the Times (about Harding!), it is so very gratifying that the issue of gun violence and control should be placed front and center.
Thank you, to my favorite newspaper, for your beautiful front-page editorial. I am going to have it framed, and hang it prominently in my home and work-place.
3
I am at a point to not negotiate anything for mine, my kids, my friends & families and my fellow citizens right to purse a happy life that, it's time to repeal the second amendment.
I would have negotiated, if they have showed the willingness, but we're beyond that point now.
Either agree to open a GMD(Gun Management department) (means own up like a man) or give it up.
I would have negotiated, if they have showed the willingness, but we're beyond that point now.
Either agree to open a GMD(Gun Management department) (means own up like a man) or give it up.
3
Well said and if that is what it takes, so be it!
1
As a a owner of guns, but not a member or fan of the NRA I see no reason why we cannot institute some kind of National Registration and data base for gun owners. That said I don't have a problem with different types of guns. I know the major battle cry is against assault style weapons, sorry it's just a gun and any gun no matter the size or type can be a killing tool in hands of the wrong person. But at the end of the day it's still just a inanimate object. This comment section is going to be flooded with the rhetoric about the evils of the NRA. While I don't care for them, what they do in political funding for both Republicans and Democrats is legal, maybe not PC ethical but still legal. If you want to stop it you first need to change the laws regarding lobbyists and political funding or in my opinion do away with lobbyists altogether! Pandora's Box has been open for a long time regarding guns and gun ownership. There is no way legal gun owners are going to allow their personal property to be seized and or confiscated by the US government, it's just not going to happen. It doesn't make any difference if you liberal or conservative at the end of the day we are a self absorbed, self serving narcissistic and entitled divided country. Truly sad!
For too long the media has been silent while right wing lobbies have high jacked the will of the American people. The Republican Party has become an obstacle to American progress.
Most Americans are appalled at the rising number of gun ownership in the USA. 4 million hand guns reside in the homes of Americans, most purchased from unlicensed gun shops.
The NRA has been given a power in politics which has superseded the will of the American people.
The Southern gun culture has been allowed to dictate American policy for too long.
Until Americans take back control of their government the crisis will continue. It is time to repeal the 2nd Amendment; this is 2015 not 1776.
Most Americans are appalled at the rising number of gun ownership in the USA. 4 million hand guns reside in the homes of Americans, most purchased from unlicensed gun shops.
The NRA has been given a power in politics which has superseded the will of the American people.
The Southern gun culture has been allowed to dictate American policy for too long.
Until Americans take back control of their government the crisis will continue. It is time to repeal the 2nd Amendment; this is 2015 not 1776.
3
I live in Japan, and am an admirer of the US. Except on this one topic.
It boggles my mind that there is a continuing debate on this topic. We might as well debate whether the earth goes around the sun or vice versa.
It boggles my mind that there is a continuing debate on this topic. We might as well debate whether the earth goes around the sun or vice versa.
2
I read that editorial as addressing private gun ownership, and not gun violence per se.
1
Not only clear, unambiguous positions in the editorial columns, but also the very balanced way of creating the newspaper is a wonderful feature of the NY Times. Thank you for your insight in the editorial process. In a media world getting flatter and flatter, and more an more superficial, even one dimensional, it is great that you uphold these high journalistic and publishing standards.
5
Well done!
We should aggressively remove (1) from sales and then (2) gradually buy back and make illegal (a) All weapons of that can kill more than one being per minute; and (b) all handguns that are the tool of choice for suicides. These weapons have become unusual and dangerous.
HOWEVER, we should clearly state that hunting rifles are within the scope of the Second Amendment. We need hunters in Maine (and VT, MT and other rural/semi rural areas to control deer, coyotes and other nuisance wildlife. They also have a legitimate use if animals are killed for food. (( and by the way, we need gun owners -- i suspect most of them are hunters -- to get to an effective solution)
We should aggressively remove (1) from sales and then (2) gradually buy back and make illegal (a) All weapons of that can kill more than one being per minute; and (b) all handguns that are the tool of choice for suicides. These weapons have become unusual and dangerous.
HOWEVER, we should clearly state that hunting rifles are within the scope of the Second Amendment. We need hunters in Maine (and VT, MT and other rural/semi rural areas to control deer, coyotes and other nuisance wildlife. They also have a legitimate use if animals are killed for food. (( and by the way, we need gun owners -- i suspect most of them are hunters -- to get to an effective solution)
What is to distinguish a hunting rifle or pistol from any other variation of said rifle or pistol. What would be the best way to determine if the, if you will allow me to paraphrase, "one kill per minute" weapons are intended for suicide? does the intended suicidal person count as the one kill? What are we to do about the constitution? Can we place further restrictions on the first amendment as well? Maybe we should also discard the third amendment, I mean the entire nation would be safer if there were a soldier or Marine in ever home would they not? Stop and Frisk was so successful, maybe we should be forced to empty our pockets any time we pass an Officer on the street, since you know...someone might have a gun, somewhere. To please the Republicans perhaps we should negate the 16th amendment as well, we all know how much Republicans hate paying taxes. And lets look at the greater good for all of America for a minute. We should look at restricting the speed at which vehicles travel since more people die in high speed vehicle accidents than gun violence. We should probably re-activate the 18th amendment as well since alcohol related deaths are far greater than firearm related deaths (might as well throw tobacco in there as well since we aren't smart enough to already know that cigarettes kill us too).
2
Thank you for this bold statement on the front page of the NYT! I felt like the cavalry was finally riding in with reinforcements! I know I'm like so many other anguished citizens who feel helpless in these times. It's seems almost silly to say we will vote out those who won't support changing our gun laws to outlaw assault rifles and the rounds designed for the military and the police, and the other sane moves that would make us all safer. Yet that's mostly what I read and hear: let's vote them out. I will never never never understand how anyone can continue to support such weaponry. Sandy Hook still haunts me. I urge you, NYT, to continue to hammer this issue. I will be reading...and sharing...and talking. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm counting on you to do what we ordinary citizens can't do. Thank you.
2
We have close to 3,000 people on death row in the US but have executed around 1%, 25-45 people a year for the past decade. Japan has under 10 murders per year using guns. Their punishment is many years in prison if caught with a gun.
Perhaps we should institute a harder line with those who use their guns to kill or injure others-
IF they use a gun in a crime, it's automatically 10 years in prison. If they kill someone with their gun to commit a crime, they're put to death.
It sounds harsh, but I believe people would think twice before using a gun to commit a crime if the penalty was so severe.
Perhaps we should institute a harder line with those who use their guns to kill or injure others-
IF they use a gun in a crime, it's automatically 10 years in prison. If they kill someone with their gun to commit a crime, they're put to death.
It sounds harsh, but I believe people would think twice before using a gun to commit a crime if the penalty was so severe.
1
As a Veteran I hate guns and violence. When those elected officials and those sworn officers can reasonably protect my family from harm and do so in a timely manner I will be glad to give up my firearms.
We have deeply rooted societal issues including an overall disrespect for all human life that is the larger issue.
We have deeply rooted societal issues including an overall disrespect for all human life that is the larger issue.
I was disappointed that you decided to put it on the front page. I believe in the citizens right to bear arms. Unfortunately, like all the other illegal things, if guns are denied to all, then only the bad element will have them. I would rather have the remote opportunity to defend my family and myself should a need arise. It is obvious that in this day and age, our government cannot protect us (the administration that is currently in office can not even admit there is a problem.)
2
The front page editorial is an example of why I chose to subscribe to both the print and on-lined editions of the NYT. Keep providing the logical and intelligent perspectives that are needed.
1
Re: The Gun Epidemic: The Making of a Page 1 Editorial, Dec. 7, 2015.
Once Franz Kafka wrote to a friend that "a book must be the ax for the frozen sea within us." Today, the "frozen sea" inside us is much larger and deeper than it was in Kafka's time. And you're talking about an editorial, not a book. Still, an editorial on the gun epidemic in America on the front page of one of the greatest of the world's newspapers, the venerable New York Times, is going to have a profound impact on its readers, not only of today but also of tomorrow, for it is going to be made available to high school and college students in textbooks and anthologies. It will unleash fresh and fearless thinking on gun violence in America, where, as you point out, guns, shockingly, outnumber people, as in no other nation.
The editorial might also trigger a mass movement for a gun-free America in which people can see movies and plays at theaters; attend music concerts; hold parties in open places; all, all, without fear, as now. Further, it will eradicate fatal domestic violence and put a stop to mass killings in schools and on campuses.
Would it not end police brutality against blacks? Most definitely. I dream of an America where cops don't carry guns. Such an America is a beautiful, as well as a highly desirable one. What's more: It's achievable. Will it into being, New York Times. Fire the first shot.
Once Franz Kafka wrote to a friend that "a book must be the ax for the frozen sea within us." Today, the "frozen sea" inside us is much larger and deeper than it was in Kafka's time. And you're talking about an editorial, not a book. Still, an editorial on the gun epidemic in America on the front page of one of the greatest of the world's newspapers, the venerable New York Times, is going to have a profound impact on its readers, not only of today but also of tomorrow, for it is going to be made available to high school and college students in textbooks and anthologies. It will unleash fresh and fearless thinking on gun violence in America, where, as you point out, guns, shockingly, outnumber people, as in no other nation.
The editorial might also trigger a mass movement for a gun-free America in which people can see movies and plays at theaters; attend music concerts; hold parties in open places; all, all, without fear, as now. Further, it will eradicate fatal domestic violence and put a stop to mass killings in schools and on campuses.
Would it not end police brutality against blacks? Most definitely. I dream of an America where cops don't carry guns. Such an America is a beautiful, as well as a highly desirable one. What's more: It's achievable. Will it into being, New York Times. Fire the first shot.
2
While politically incorrect these days, I am pro gun control. However, I'm anti Nytimes editorial. From the days that the paper was known for independent non-partisan news to today has been a tortured journey. Online allows conflates editorial, news and advertising in ways that only the most observant reader can discern. Instead, we have a "paper" that nominally labels content, controls the insertion of user content (which adjusts news pieces into editorial pieces) and inserts advertorial works into the paper (entire real estate section). If you choose to continue this practice then at least acknowledge that you are not a newspaper but an opinion paper
1
I completely agree that this is a critical issue and applaud the Times for the placement of the editorial. But doesn't your column prove that NYT editorials have no impact on either gun violence or gun regulation? 15 Editorials published since Newtown and no impact on either. Unless someone things 24 hours above the fold somehow is different? If the NYT were serious about this, how about a daily count of gun deaths on the masthead? Or a daily tally of donations from the NRA? Or replace the banner ad on the masthead with a call to action on gun regulation each day. 24 hours of a front page editorial does not make a serious contribution to the debate.
Interesting that the NYT editorial board didn't outline how it proposes to accomplish the mass confiscation of firearms it is advocating.
Putting aside the basics of constitutional law (such a policy would clearly violate that pesky Second Amendment) one wonders who exactly would be the target of such federal confiscation efforts if the federal government could recruit enough FBI and ATF agents, US Marshals, park rangers and, one imagines, postal workers to make it happen. In all seriousness, I don't expect to see federal agents storming into Vermont to confiscate guns in that lily-white, liberal enclave with some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country.
Very sad when the publication of an editorial with zero chance of impacting actual policy is somehow cause for look-at-me trumpeting by the "paper of record".
Putting aside the basics of constitutional law (such a policy would clearly violate that pesky Second Amendment) one wonders who exactly would be the target of such federal confiscation efforts if the federal government could recruit enough FBI and ATF agents, US Marshals, park rangers and, one imagines, postal workers to make it happen. In all seriousness, I don't expect to see federal agents storming into Vermont to confiscate guns in that lily-white, liberal enclave with some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country.
Very sad when the publication of an editorial with zero chance of impacting actual policy is somehow cause for look-at-me trumpeting by the "paper of record".
2
I have no qualms at all with a page 1 Editorial. None at all.
My frustration is with the NYT publishing photographs of murderers, as in the awful events in Boston, San Bernardino, Paris ... no photos PLEASE! I'd go one step further and never publish the murderers' names.
By publishing their photographs, and their names, repeatedly, the NYT is actually glorifying them and playing into their hands = free publicity.
Please stop that!
Arthur is not the only one incensed about gun violence. It's also time to start advocating more than 'gun laws' and start lobbying for banning of most guns.
My frustration is with the NYT publishing photographs of murderers, as in the awful events in Boston, San Bernardino, Paris ... no photos PLEASE! I'd go one step further and never publish the murderers' names.
By publishing their photographs, and their names, repeatedly, the NYT is actually glorifying them and playing into their hands = free publicity.
Please stop that!
Arthur is not the only one incensed about gun violence. It's also time to start advocating more than 'gun laws' and start lobbying for banning of most guns.
1
Thank you for this lovely backstory to the front page editorial. Thank you for shouting it from your rooftop!
It certainly worked to get the word out. Now let's see if it works to make our nation safer from guns.
I'm hoping that churches, mosques, synagogues and temples will work together and sponsor events for guns to be turned in. Surely every faith tradition calls for peace and non-violence. Guns should be the first thing they organize to stop.
It certainly worked to get the word out. Now let's see if it works to make our nation safer from guns.
I'm hoping that churches, mosques, synagogues and temples will work together and sponsor events for guns to be turned in. Surely every faith tradition calls for peace and non-violence. Guns should be the first thing they organize to stop.
1
When I saw (and read) the front page editorial I was amazed. I am 64 and have been a lifetime NY Times reader and have no recollection of such an editorial. That it took so long speaks to how important this problem is. I am happy to know that there is a very serious commitment on the part of the Time to continue reporting on the American gun epidemic and keep it front burner issue as long as necessary to effect some kind of positive change in our society. I say, "good for you!", to the NY Times. Good for all of us.
1
Why do I feel the need to invoke old trope, "Don't break an arm patting yourself on the back ..."?
Constant attempts to connect gun violence to gun ownership is a proven nonstarter. A glaring counter-argument always presents itself; the vast majority of guns in America are never used in crimes. Personally I dislike guns, and consider them a dangerous toy not worth the serious responsibility of ownership. This does not prevent me from empathizing with gun owners:
Law-abiding Americans are too savvy (and suspicious) to accept that they have to accept a diminished right because of criminal behavior of others. Just as they believe it's better to let ten guilty men go free than to put one innocent man in jail; American gun owners believe that it's better to deal with gun events committed by criminals as they occur, than to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
This argument has the tenacity of oobleck, the harder you hit it the more impenetrable it becomes, and in that character trait it resembles Americans themselves. For this quality I both understand and respect gun owners' intransigence on this issue. Speaking from experience; arguments against gun ownership should appeal to the individual to choose to not own a gun. Not to people don't own guns to prevent others from doing so.
Constant attempts to connect gun violence to gun ownership is a proven nonstarter. A glaring counter-argument always presents itself; the vast majority of guns in America are never used in crimes. Personally I dislike guns, and consider them a dangerous toy not worth the serious responsibility of ownership. This does not prevent me from empathizing with gun owners:
Law-abiding Americans are too savvy (and suspicious) to accept that they have to accept a diminished right because of criminal behavior of others. Just as they believe it's better to let ten guilty men go free than to put one innocent man in jail; American gun owners believe that it's better to deal with gun events committed by criminals as they occur, than to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
This argument has the tenacity of oobleck, the harder you hit it the more impenetrable it becomes, and in that character trait it resembles Americans themselves. For this quality I both understand and respect gun owners' intransigence on this issue. Speaking from experience; arguments against gun ownership should appeal to the individual to choose to not own a gun. Not to people don't own guns to prevent others from doing so.
1
I have written it in other places but directly to you is important: BRAVO.
For many things.
The printed front page of the New York Times is like no other place. The impact is simply not there in digital. As a 30+ year subscriber, I look forward to that thud on my driveway each and every day. Perusing the front page is a joy, holding the paper a part of my day. I am glad that you wrote this Insider and truly pleased that you recognized that print, YOUR printed newspaper, is still a crucial place to start and continue an educated debate.
Every 100 years or so seems just about right for a NYT front page editorial. Seriously, don't over do it.
The substance of, and stance taken in, your editorial was superb. Take on that fool who says that he "knows" that the outcome would be different if the victims had guns too. How on this green earth can he possibly know?
How about writing about the law that the SCOTUS would not review? Seems like it might be a good candidate to be replicated coast to coast.
I will say it again: the front page of the Gray Lady is a place to behold. There is no greater [or impressive] piece of journalistic real estate. Keep it up and fight the good fight.
For many things.
The printed front page of the New York Times is like no other place. The impact is simply not there in digital. As a 30+ year subscriber, I look forward to that thud on my driveway each and every day. Perusing the front page is a joy, holding the paper a part of my day. I am glad that you wrote this Insider and truly pleased that you recognized that print, YOUR printed newspaper, is still a crucial place to start and continue an educated debate.
Every 100 years or so seems just about right for a NYT front page editorial. Seriously, don't over do it.
The substance of, and stance taken in, your editorial was superb. Take on that fool who says that he "knows" that the outcome would be different if the victims had guns too. How on this green earth can he possibly know?
How about writing about the law that the SCOTUS would not review? Seems like it might be a good candidate to be replicated coast to coast.
I will say it again: the front page of the Gray Lady is a place to behold. There is no greater [or impressive] piece of journalistic real estate. Keep it up and fight the good fight.
1
When I saw that it was there, I asked my husband, who was driving at the time, if I could read it aloud. I had not yet read it myself. I was surprised to discover that I could not read it without my voice cracking; I was nearly in tears.
Saturday's editorial was a brave move. The thousands of comments revealed both sides of the passionate disagreement we have in this country. Of course that disagreement hasn't been hidden away, but it meant a lot to see it played out here. Newtown threw me into an ugly depression. At first I too I went bananas, to my neighbors, relatives, friends, on line. It was only a couple of days afterward when I realized that the extent of the acrimony was the scariest thing to me. I lost friends in the discussion, and I lost respect for many others.
I don't understand it. I am a middle aged, educated, middle class, white, woman. I've never been arrested. I don't think I've had a speeding ticket in 25 years. If I wanted a gun, I could probably get one tonight, and I would look like one of the good guys with a gun. At the very least, I would look like a woman who wanted and deserved to have protection.
The only problem is, I am one of the people who should never, ever, ever, have a gun. The only people who really understand that are my husband, our kids, my parents. The possibility exists that in a rage, I would do something insanely stupid. A background check would never reveal that. There needs to be a system of psych tests.
Saturday's editorial was a brave move. The thousands of comments revealed both sides of the passionate disagreement we have in this country. Of course that disagreement hasn't been hidden away, but it meant a lot to see it played out here. Newtown threw me into an ugly depression. At first I too I went bananas, to my neighbors, relatives, friends, on line. It was only a couple of days afterward when I realized that the extent of the acrimony was the scariest thing to me. I lost friends in the discussion, and I lost respect for many others.
I don't understand it. I am a middle aged, educated, middle class, white, woman. I've never been arrested. I don't think I've had a speeding ticket in 25 years. If I wanted a gun, I could probably get one tonight, and I would look like one of the good guys with a gun. At the very least, I would look like a woman who wanted and deserved to have protection.
The only problem is, I am one of the people who should never, ever, ever, have a gun. The only people who really understand that are my husband, our kids, my parents. The possibility exists that in a rage, I would do something insanely stupid. A background check would never reveal that. There needs to be a system of psych tests.
1
By resolutely looking at guns the editorial seemed to want to sidestep the terror issue- that's how I read it and so did many people judging by the comments.
It's not that it was wrong to go after the gun issue, but the omission of a major part of the story made the piece look unfair.
This was highlighted by its appearance on the same page as the article reporting on the status of the FBI investigation.
It's not that it was wrong to go after the gun issue, but the omission of a major part of the story made the piece look unfair.
This was highlighted by its appearance on the same page as the article reporting on the status of the FBI investigation.
1
I have been a NY times subscriber continuously since I was 10 years old. I am now 68. My loyalty over that long period is a testament to the integrity and journalistic excellence of the NY Times. I greatly respect its coverage of the news as well as its editorial policies and positions. Thank you for once again pushing the boundaries of journalism by moving an issue as important as this to the front page. It demonstrates forcefully the importance of this issue and was clearly labeled as an editorial/opinion piece. No one should be confused by that.
Until and unless we are willing to change this countries approach to controlling access to firearms and ammunition more responsibly, this senseless and tragic violence will continue.
During my business career, I traveled many times to Australia and continue to have many close friends there. The reaction of my Australian friends to the gun violence and unwillingness to address it responsibly is continued bewilderment. Prior to 1986, Australia had a gun culture not dissimilar to ours as well as numerous mass shootings and a significant number of Australians dying annually as a result of gun violence. After a mass killing at a school, Australians decided to do something about it. Significant reforms were enacted. Since that time the incidence of gun violence have declined significantly.
Let us use the Australian experience as an example.
Until and unless we are willing to change this countries approach to controlling access to firearms and ammunition more responsibly, this senseless and tragic violence will continue.
During my business career, I traveled many times to Australia and continue to have many close friends there. The reaction of my Australian friends to the gun violence and unwillingness to address it responsibly is continued bewilderment. Prior to 1986, Australia had a gun culture not dissimilar to ours as well as numerous mass shootings and a significant number of Australians dying annually as a result of gun violence. After a mass killing at a school, Australians decided to do something about it. Significant reforms were enacted. Since that time the incidence of gun violence have declined significantly.
Let us use the Australian experience as an example.
25
Specifically, Australia banned the private ownership of rapid-fire military assault weapons and arranged for police departments to offer modest remuneration for them. One would think that is the least our Congress would do at this point, but so far this needed and probably inevitable restriction has not even been mentioned by any of the dozen or so Republicans now running for President.
I was especially proud to be a subscriber and supporter of your paper when I received the front page editorial on my doorstep last week.
Thank you.
Thank you.
30
Why is it that this shooting spree, clearly a terrorist attack, and as we see on page 1 today, by terrorists who were radicalized for quite some time, engenders a front page editorial on gun control whereas domestic crime related shootings in the past have not? I think it's an attempt to deflect attention from another failure in monitoring potential terrorists in our midst similar to the Boston marathon bombers.
2
I am proud to be a digital subscriber to the New York Times, especially as a voice of outrage over the proliferation of guns in this country. It is unfathomable that a "civilized" society would have such a proliferation of deadly weapons and that one political party in this country would encourage the population to purchase such weapons. On top of that, there is absolutely no rational reason for military-style weapons to be available to the general public. After every mass shooting, Republicans rightly voice sympathy to the victims and profess admiration for first responders. If they really care about first responders, they should consider why they should have to put their lives at risk in the first place by taking on indviduals with such deadly weapons.
2
“Let me buy any gun I want to defend myself, or I’ll shoot you” is not a rational argument."
Great line. I too was amazed at the level of violence and negativity in so many of the comments on that editorial, that ran a full 3 days. What astounded me most was the clear distinction between gun control and terrorism: as if they were two separate topics, and only American nut cases could trigger a discussion of guns, not jihadists.
But I couldn't see that, and in my posts, said both topics are relevant, intertwined and extremely important. The ready access to firearms was a huge part of the San Bernadino attacks. Were some of those weapons banned, the perpetrators of jihad would have had far less to work with.
One of the reasons I read the Times is for big bold moves like this, as well as the quality of the reporting. Thank you again, Editorial Board.
Great line. I too was amazed at the level of violence and negativity in so many of the comments on that editorial, that ran a full 3 days. What astounded me most was the clear distinction between gun control and terrorism: as if they were two separate topics, and only American nut cases could trigger a discussion of guns, not jihadists.
But I couldn't see that, and in my posts, said both topics are relevant, intertwined and extremely important. The ready access to firearms was a huge part of the San Bernadino attacks. Were some of those weapons banned, the perpetrators of jihad would have had far less to work with.
One of the reasons I read the Times is for big bold moves like this, as well as the quality of the reporting. Thank you again, Editorial Board.
48
How does wanting to own a firearm for self defense make you a terrorist? You may not want to be able to defend yourself and that is fine. However, I have the right to defend myself and my family, and I will if needed. Hopefully, that day will never come, but I want to be able to if the need should arise.
1
Ms. McMorrow, I can appreciate you thinking that is the type of weapons used were banned that these people would have not had access, but we can look at something as simple as tobacco and teenagers. It is illegal for teenagers to purchase tobacco yet there are still teen smokers; not to mention all of the other illegal substances out there. We are not talking about people that had extremely limited resources, the investment they made in weaponry could have been much worse were they forced to go to the dark web or black market where class III firearms are plentiful.
@Sean: reread my post. Where do I say that wanting to own a gun for self protection equates to being a terrorist. This is how fights begin: a total misread of the wording of the points one is trying to make,
If the News department agrees that this is an important issue, let's have some informative graphics, also on the Front Page.
Show the seats in Congress and color- code who voted to allow suspected terrorists on the no- fly list to buy guns. Who is sponsoring, and who opposing, a ban on AR-15s and related weapons? Who supports and who opposes universal background checks?
Inform our consent as Citizens of a Democracy! If someone wants to go "bananas" as one- issue voter to Stop this unrelenting carnage, help everyone see very clearly whether their Representative actually represents them and vote accordingly.
Show the seats in Congress and color- code who voted to allow suspected terrorists on the no- fly list to buy guns. Who is sponsoring, and who opposing, a ban on AR-15s and related weapons? Who supports and who opposes universal background checks?
Inform our consent as Citizens of a Democracy! If someone wants to go "bananas" as one- issue voter to Stop this unrelenting carnage, help everyone see very clearly whether their Representative actually represents them and vote accordingly.
60
Lynn,
No one has voted to allow terrorist or those on the no fly list to purchase a firearm. Being able to purchase a firearm or not is all related to whether or not you have a felony conviction or a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence on your record. An involuntary commitment for mental health issues are another thing that precludes you from purchasing a firearm. These are written into law and have been for many years.
No one has voted to allow terrorist or those on the no fly list to purchase a firearm. Being able to purchase a firearm or not is all related to whether or not you have a felony conviction or a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence on your record. An involuntary commitment for mental health issues are another thing that precludes you from purchasing a firearm. These are written into law and have been for many years.
1
I think your comment is a great idea. NYT?
I agree and would urge the paper to go even further. Graphics help to understand the political obstruction more clearly. But it would be even better for the Times to start publishing photos of the carnage so that more Americans start to realize the depth of this problem. Far from being gratuitous, such crime scene photos would actually keep more people from looking away and pretending it's not a problem.
Thank you, New York Times!!