NYT: End the Gun Epidemic in America

[umbertino]

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

 

 

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

 

DEC. 4, 2015

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

 

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

 

 

This editorial published on A1 in the Dec. 5 edition of The New York Times. It is the first time an editorial has appeared on the front page since 1920.

 

A version of this editorial appears in print on December 5, 2015, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: The Gun Epidemic

 

 

 

Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html

 

[umbertino]

[Whatshername]

New York Times throws front-page temper tantrum on gun control

 

By Thomas Lifson

 

In a remarkable display of mush-headed illogic, the New York Times has run a front-page editorial for the first time in 95 years advocating gun control measures it admits would be ineffectual.  In the 447 words prompted by the San Bernardino slaughter, there was not room for the word “Islam” or “Islamic” – only for a demand to take guns away from law-abiding Americans.  Even though the Times concedes that it is all about symbolism, not practical effectiveness:

 

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

 

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.”

 

This is stunning.  “Trying” (as in violating the Constitution) is more important than results.  I can only imagine that this means the Times editorial board are sick and tired of facing their European friends who natter on about Americans being armed, and therefore somehow less civilized than the nations that took away guns from their citizens.  (Does anyone at the Times remember that Hitler regarded gun confiscation as critical to his ability to make fundamental change to Germany?)

 

By conceding that terrorists and other villains will still be able to get guns, the Times is following the logic of “gun-free zones,” insisting that depriving the good guys of the ability to defend themselves will somehow deter armed malefactors.  This didn’t work at Columbine, Sandy Hook, or the Inland Regional Center.  But feeling good about oneself  (“trying”) is more important than the facts.

There are examples of mush in the editorial, in particular the insistence that the appearance of a gun somehow makes it more dangerous and justifies confiscation:

 

“Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.”

 

The Times does not bother with defining the “clear and effective” characteristics of the “certain kinds” of weapons it wants to outlaw, but as many people have pointed out, the term “assault weapon” is all about appearance.  And even Soros-funded ProPublica admits that the “assault weapons” ban that expired ten years ago was ineffectual:

 

 "There is no compelling evidence that it saved lives," Duke University public policy experts Philip Cook and Kristin Goss wrote in their book "The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know."

 

A definitive study of the 1994 law – which prohibited the manufacture and sale of semiautomatic guns with "military-style features" such pistol grips or bayonet mounts as well as magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition – found no evidence that it had reduced overall gun crime or made shootings less lethal. "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence," the Department of Justice-funded study concluded in 2004. "Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement."

 

By choosing to highlight its views in the most conspicuous way available to it short of hiring a fleet of skywriters, the New York Times is doing the printed page equivalent of shouting.  Perhaps nobody thought of using all caps.

 

Jonah Goldberg lists some of the events that weren’t important enough to merit front-page editorials:

 

“The Peace of Versailles, Buck v. Bell, the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor,* the Hitler-Stalin Pact, the Ukrainian famine, the internment of Japanese-Americans, the Tuskegee experiments, the Holocaust,  McCarthyism, the Marshall Plan, Jim Crow, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Kennedy Assassination, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Kent State, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Watergate, withdrawal from Vietnam, the Killing Fields, the Iran hostage crisis, the Contras, AIDS, *** marriage, the Iran nuclear deal: These are just a few of the things the New York Times chose not to run front page editorials on.”

 

The effort will no doubt result in approving head-nodding in liberal circles.  I doubt very much that anyone who personally knows any members of the board will engage in any back-slapping or “attaboys” – that is far too déclassé, and besides, it would have to be “attagirl” in many cases.  But the cocktail circuit will still be impressed. 

 

The Times considers itself a conning tower for the Demcoratic Party, and I can only hope that the party defers to its betters and follows suit.  Tom Maguire knows what would happen:

 

“… if this is the official Times editorial position position there will be pressure on Democratic candidates to support or reject it, and good luck to them. Run, indeed. Picture the Democratic campaign message: the jihadists are here, we can't stop them, so turn in your guns. Obama is sufficiently arrogant and out of touch to think that might be the winning ticket, but it's hard to believe Bill will let Hillarious walk that plank. Which portends trouble in progressive paradise”.

[bohica]

​There is NO gun problem.  There are people problems but an inanimate object cannot be the problem.  There is no rules or legislation that will keep bad people from getting guns.  There are only rules that will prevent good people from getting them.  There is no possible way that laws are going to be obeyed by those intent upon not obeying the law.  The nut cases from California already had broken the law.  Anyone who thinks that a terrorists will not kill because it is illegal is a fool.  Chicago has the toughest gun laws and there is a daily bloodbath there.  The majority of places that have had mass shootings have been gun free zones.  It takes a special type of moron to think that a gang banger or terrorist will obey the law.  If you want to stop or slow gun violence then let more good people carry. 

[markb57]

MOLON-LABE........................

[Thaiexpat]

Well armed-populace is protected and polite. More weapons, the better. I wish they would lift the ban on machine guns. I'd fancy walking around with an MG 42. Dunno, just saying....

[nstoolman1]

 

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

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html

 

 

 

I for sure would not buy one that was inefficient at doing its job of protecting me or mine. 

[bohica]

It takes a special kind of moron to think that if guns of any speed was illegal that terrorists would not get them.  Keep in mind that in Mexico it is illegal to have anything that is a military caliber and the cartels have no problem getting military grade anything.  In Chicago the strict gun laws do nothing to stop daily slaughter.  In Australia the gun violence rate has sky rocketed to where the politicians are baffled.  Making things illegal does not stop illegal people.  How many mass shootings have happened in gun free zones.  The only ones who think that making guns illegal will stop gun crime are liberals and morons.  Usually the two are synopsis.  

[Rockymtnhi]

The French are all running around trying to get guns to protect themselves from the muslim swarms overrunning their country and of course they can't because guns are illegal in France.  The same in the UK. 

[dog53]

Well armed-populace is protected and polite. More weapons, the better. I wish they would lift the ban on machine guns. I'd fancy walking around with an MG 42. Dunno, just saying....

 

 

I like the way you think Doc

 

This article is so lame.  Come on Umbert at least find one that makes sense 

 

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

Come on I can take any semi auto deer rifle and get the same results. 

[sxsess]

All the talk about gun control is a joke! No matter what those dumb *******s in Washington do is irrelevant. The constitution is all that matters. Anyone that attempts to disarm me will be hauled off by the local coroners office.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Markinsa
Language | See Forum Rules

[dog53]

It is a joke sxsess  your right.

There nor gonna take crap

Its all just a diversion to keep us off balance and a way to stop us from focusing on the real problem

 

CORRUPT GOVT.   BLUE AND RED.

[divemaster5734]

​There is NO gun problem.  There are people problems but an inanimate object cannot be the problem.  There is no rules or legislation that will keep bad people from getting guns.  There are only rules that will prevent good people from getting them.  There is no possible way that laws are going to be obeyed by those intent upon not obeying the law.  The nut cases from California already had broken the law.  Anyone who thinks that a terrorists will not kill because it is illegal is a fool.  Chicago has the toughest gun laws and there is a daily bloodbath there.  The majority of places that have had mass shootings have been gun free zones.  It takes a special type of moron to think that a gang banger or terrorist will obey the law.  If you want to stop or slow gun violence then let more good people carry. 

MOLON-LABE........................

Well armed-populace is protected and polite. More weapons, the better. I wish they would lift the ban on machine guns. I'd fancy walking around with an MG 42. Dunno, just saying....

I for sure would not buy one that was inefficient at doing its job of protecting me or mine. 

It takes a special kind of moron to think that if guns of any speed was illegal that terrorists would not get them.  Keep in mind that in Mexico it is illegal to have anything that is a military caliber and the cartels have no problem getting military grade anything.  In Chicago the strict gun laws do nothing to stop daily slaughter.  In Australia the gun violence rate has sky rocketed to where the politicians are baffled.  Making things illegal does not stop illegal people.  How many mass shootings have happened in gun free zones.  The only ones who think that making guns illegal will stop gun crime are liberals and morons.  Usually the two are synopsis.  

The French are all running around trying to get guns to protect themselves from the muslim swarms overrunning their country and of course they can't because guns are illegal in France.  The same in the UK. 

 

I like the way you think Doc

 

This article is so lame.  Come on Umbert at least find one that makes sense 

 

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

Come on I can take any semi auto deer rifle and get the same results. 

All the talk about gun control is a joke! No matter what those dumb *******s in Washington do is irrelevant. The constitution is all that matters. Anyone that attempts to disarm me will be hauled off by the local coroners office.

It is a joke sxsess  your right.

There nor gonna take crap

Its all just a diversion to keep us off balance and a way to stop us from focusing on the real problem

 

CORRUPT GOVT.   BLUE AND RED.

 

Pluses to all.

What the press seems to be ignoring is, the dude made $50k a year.

His wife was unemployed.

The armory they were in possession of cost an estimated $30 k minimum

So, look at the raw numbers.

After taxes, even at 24% overall tax rate, cleared $38,000.

Apartment, utilities, food, clothes, even at discount ran at least $1,500 a month, $18,000

Add getting his wife her visa, applications, and plane ticket., $2,500

That only left $17,500, to but $30,000 worth of weapons.

WHO HELPED?????

Out of the "disposable" income 17.5 k he bought a car, computer, had internet, etc.

The reality is, it would have taken a decade for him to purchase everything.

Even though he did buy the two 9 mm legally, no one knows where he got the AR15's, or the 50,000 rounds for them.

These jerks were not acting alone, on their own.

 

After his wife arrived, he quit going to his peaceful mosque, and started going to one connected with other known terrorists.

And all the libs can scream about is trying to take away our right to bear arms.

It's full blown insanity.

 

Sometimes I really hate being right.

Like when I told my son to drive safe even after I wasn't in the car anymore, instead he lost his license before he learned.

 

We can't afford to lose America before the libtards are proven wrong.

Make no mistake, this is a fight for our very survival.

 

Umber, you are usually a nice guy, but you will only stir extreme anger if you continue to sit there in Europe  and demand Americans meekly give away their homeland.

I don't think you understand, or even have the capacity to understand, Americans deep rooted belief in their right to carry arms.

 

You can have mine, just as soon as you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

Just understand, I will use my last breath, and my last strength, to resist.

[Candy01]

umbertino,

 

I gave you a plus to try to even you out.  I think this editorial is RIGHT ON!

 

WHEN will folks use their COMMON SENSE to put in place decent gun laws AT LAST?!

 

:bravo:

[rope]

So what kind of "laws" for knife/machette owners? I know........let's give the secret service butter knives to protect the president.......

[Indraman]

umbertino,

I gave you a plus to try to even you out. I think this editorial is RIGHT ON!

WHEN will folks use their COMMON SENSE to put in place decent gun laws AT LAST?!

:bravo:

"Common Sense" would be missing here if your stance is that more gun laws will solve this issue. Empirical data is quite to the contrary, but for some reason "Common Sense" ignores the data and instead makes claims that "outcome" is not what matters but instead the fact that we tried.

Indy

[bohica]

It is a special kind of fool to think that if guns are outlaws that outlaws would not have guns.  Chicago is a prime example of the folly of gun laws but liberals refuse to deal in reality.  I do not know what kind of psychosis it takes to be a liberal but people who live in a fantasy and not reality fit that category.  

[dog53]

umbertino,

 

I gave you a plus to try to even you out.  I think this editorial is RIGHT ON!

 

WHEN will folks use their COMMON SENSE to put in place decent gun laws AT LAST?!

 

:bravo:

 

 

 

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa

 

really?

[Sentinel7]

The problem is not common sense gun control laws because they all ready exist.

When God was this country’s anchor we did not have this problem.

When America was American and not a global society we did not have this problem.

When deviant behavior was called deviant we did not have these problems.

Now we have chased God out of our lives we have psychiatrist’s drugging the deviants and telling them that they are normal and are victims of bigots.

We have lawyers assuring them that they are indeed victims and must sue to force people to accept their deviant behavior as normal.

We have a federal government that breaks every law that they are sworn to uphold.

Also this same government facilitates the invasion of America through illegal aliens and Islamic extremists who want to kill us and demand that we accept and pay for our own destruction 

 We have the Democratic Party who is trying to disarm the rest of us and make us as defenseless as the unborn babies that they rip out of the womb butcher and then sell as parts just like auto chop shops.

 

 Makes you wonder why sometimes someone goes over the edge don’t it.

 

           Personally I believe we are on the verge of exploding

 

              No Surrender No Retreat and No Compromise  

[Synopsis]

The only ones who think that making guns illegal will stop gun crime are liberals and morons. Usually the two are synopsis.

What????

I am neither a liberal or a moron!

Well, OK, just pokin' atcha for the typo.

Every law abiding citizen should have one or more guns of their choosing. How ever many they want and whatever type and magazine capacity. These same individuals should use them regularly to maintain safety and proficiency in their use.

I once heard Deadwood, South Dakota has the highest US per capita concealed carry permits and is the politest place in America. Well, crime, is really, really low there, too.

[AoK]

”This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” ~Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

  

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  

George Santayana,  The Life of Reason, 1905

"Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum _est" ("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands") Lucius Annaeus Seneca  4BC-65AD


"“The gun itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with guns.”   Jeff Cooper
 

”A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” ~Sigmund Freud