Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE NEW YORK Times is today using its front page for an editorial for the first time in almost 100 years.
The piece, entitled The Gun Epidemic, takes aim at the ease with which people are able to purchase weapons designed to kill with “brutal speed and efficiency”.
At the centre of its argument is a call for a big reduction in the total number of weapons in circulation in the United States and much tougher restrictions on the classification of guns that the public are able to own.
The editorial comes in the wake of shooting attack in California on Wednesday that saw a husband and wife Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik using assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns to kill 14 people and injure 21 others at a social services agency in San Bernardino, California.
In the editorial it states:
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.
It goes on to take aim at the US political classes for failing to take action on the issue.
It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.
Acknowledging that a change in gun laws would require current gun owners to hand in their weapons, the piece concludes by saying:
What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
If a school of massacred children didn’t push lawmakers to change gun laws, nothing will.
@Tim – You mean like in Beslan?
Maybe America should control their corporations from wrecking the world._.
Dunblane Scotland,another horrific school shooting
Out of our cold dead hands.
Or the cold dead hands of hundreds of innocent men, women and children every year. Get your s€;t together USA.
yeah, remember that Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Its the mentality that needs to be addressed too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw
I think Chris has a very valid point! :)
The US has a population of about 350m. That includes an awful lot of people with issues. Couple that with the free availability of guns and mass shootings become a statistical certainty. The only uncertainty is time and place. The American viewpoint baffles me. They seem to believe that this is a price worth paying to maintain the right to bear arms.
Yes the mentally obscured by medicated drugs
@Joe, exactly! For example look at Switzerland; guns are legal and has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Chicago in America has the strictest gun laws in America including assault rifles being completely banned. Chicago had 420 gun homicides and 77 mass shootings.
What’s Frances excuse? The terrorist still got guns even though illegal in France..
My point is taking legal guns away will do little if anything and could make things worse, criminals will have their illegal guns still and normal law abiding citizens won’t. The vast vast vast majority of crimes happen with illegally owned guns unless the shooters are on a suicide mission like in Colombian, Newtown, Aurora cinema, San Bernardino. These are the attacks we hear about. However most will never hear about the 420 killed in Chicago with illegal guns. American mindsets must change andstrict background checks implemented, getting rid of guns for everyone is impractical, dangerous and unnecessary.
Stop making sense DM, it doesn’t sit well with the libtards. How many people are killed in Ireland each year by drunk drivers, don’t see anyone calling for prohibition of alcohol.
Why don’t the tax the living jasus out of guns and ammo akin to smoking over here. It’s not the right to carry arms they are worried about, it’s the right of guns manufacturers to sell there products they are protecting.
Good point. It won’t change their constitutional right to bear arms. Give them more constitutional rights also. The right to own a stealth bomber. The right to own an aircraft carrier. Or they could just point out that it was a simple spelling mistake. They have the right to bare arms. It’s not a right to own guns but a right to farmer tans.
It would never get through Congress. Both sides of the Houses need the votes from the gun lobby. Obama already tried that and it was killed off at its first reading.
I really hope this is the start of waking up by the U.S. but sadly it is probably another false dawn.
They can start by not giving guns to people with mental health issues and people who have links to terrorists and criminal gangs. A universal gun amnesty would take a lot of illegal firearms out of circulation as well. People should also be limited to one per household. This won’t solve every problem but it’s a start and it won’t be an attack on their constitutional right to bear arms. They should also prohibit bringing weapons into heavily built up areas. The constitution is set in stone but there are ways around it.
John. You must be living in fantasy land. Criminals are not going to give up their guns. Terrorists don’t walk around with signs around their necks saying Terrorist or mentally ill. In the San Berndino shooting they didn’t buy the Guns or ammo themselves. They were supplied to them by a third party who is being hunted now by the ATF. So how does one stop a terrorist getting their hands on illegal weapons? We with some of the world’s strictest gun laws can even do that.
@Mick. (1) Gun amnesties in many American cities have resulted in many guns being given up.
(2) A quick check with the federal authorities will tell you if a person is in contact with or are
sympathetic with terrorist organisations, just like those two nut jobs.
(3) You will find that most people with mental issues are registered somewhere. It just needs
checking.
(4) If you want information on how to tie your shoelaces, just ask.
Strict laws in California mean zilch unless you make those laws universal . If you don’t ,you can buy a gun in Nevada and drive straight into California….no questions to be asked….and those state laws don’t mean crap.
The problem is that the bizarre interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by a highly conservative Supreme Court has killed off any chance of Federal Legislation across all States in the USA. The U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to reverse itself in the near future.
Some States are receptive to stricter controls but it is beyond easy to take guns across State boundaries.
There is also a cultural and democratic dimension. The majority of US citizens either admire and love guns, the culture of guns, the notion of supposed freedom conferred by guns, the display of guns and the warlike, warrior notion of guns or else are indulgent or neutral about guns. Many US citizens are paranoia about the spectre of paranoia, are kept in a State of constant anxiety by the media and a conservative political system.
Governments do not govern by hate. Instead, Governments exploit hate so as to govern by means of a plutocracy whilst the majority of US citizens, disregarding eroding incomes, increasing social inequality, increasingly difficult access to healthcare because of the dilution of Obamacare, focus a notion of freedom based on the right to bear arms.
For many Americans, occasional mass killings by guns is a tiny price to pay for their fetishistic obsession with the totem of the gun, the symbol of freedom in an unfree society.
Fiona, I was always interested why a ‘modern society’ had such an inherent passion with guns, but to do so, had to ditch the usual over intellectualized, armchair, spectator approach to the issue. It wasn’t until reading American history, understanding the geography, the logistics of policing and the apparent freedoms that surrounded lawlessness, that an understand of the inherent passions towards self-protection and preservation arose. We also need remember the evolving nations mantra towards liberty and freedoms which in itself was a direct reaction to the overbearing monarchies of the past which gave rise to the make up of the US constitution.
America is at best a vast wilderness, and the right to bare arms was in fact the only way in which you could defend yourself, and still is in many places, especially when the nearest cop shop can be half a days drive away. Given the recent inner city and suburban sprawl, yes it is time that guns was regulated, especially with regards to types of weapon which are really only for military use. But to see the possession of the gun in the States as some kind of ‘obsession’ is to do a disservice to the reality of living there. Indeed there are places in Ireland now without local Garda Stations and the very same discussions regarding the keeping of guns is raising it’s head once more here in rural Ireland, especially with the freedom of gangs to roam
@Fiona – What ‘bizarre’ interpretation is that Fiona? It means what the authors intended it to mean.
@Martin – Great comment Martin. Well done.
@Martin everything you say about the US sounds completely logical. It is also a complete fallacy. Another country just north of the US is sparsely populated yet also has strict controls on the types of weapons that people can own while at the same time achieving a gun crime rate a fraction of the US. How is it Canada manages this while the US does not when what you say could easily be used to describe both.
@David – spot on, and while you’re at it add Australia, another “vast wilderness” that does not have a gun problem anything like that of the U.S. Fiona’s post actually summed it up very well – it’s a toxic combination of big gun money controlling politicians, a culture of individualism and anti-government, conservative legal interpretations based on what life was like centuries ago, paranoia among the citizens about crime and the likelihood of being attacked, a lack of political will, and easy movement across state borders. And if dozens of kindergarten kids getting massacred didn’t spur them into doing something, it’s hard to see what will. Still, the mainstream media addressing it may help – good editorial by the NYT.
It’s a very interesting point David, the Canadian population is only 15% that of the US, and is indeed far sparser, that’s maybe why the stats show up as being so small. As seen by this example having gun control does work and help immensely in contrast to the US where there is none. But the propensity for lawlessness and criminal activity through-out the inception of the States, and what it’s constitution permits is a toxic mix. But I very much doubt a Canadian in the rural foothills would be without a gun even if it is was to just scar off a bear. The fact that he perhaps doesn’t have to use it is moreover why we don’t hear so much about it.
@Martin Per a 2007 survey, the U.S. has approx 112 civilian-owned guns per 100 population, more than twice as many as any other country apart from Serbia. Canada has approx 30, and Switzerland (often used as a barometer for why gun controls are not the answer) also in the 30s.
“It is the first time the newspaper has used the front page for an editorial since 1920″ says it all really
What does it say?
They are only interested in selling papers with what is in the public eye. Its not the guns that kill but the people that pull the trigger.
They did not do a front page any other time since the 1920′s, why was there not similar events or has the gun lobby groups stopped giving them money ?
@Johathan – The NY Tines is a notoriously leftist paper. They would not have the support of any such gun lobby.
Fair play to them, it’ll sell a few extra copies but won’t do anything to stop gun crime.
They have not claimed it will stop gun crime, but stricter gun control may reduce it
I see your point but it still won’t change it. Guns are too big a business and the NRA have alot of backing in the senate. Obviously things need to change, but an editorial in a newspaper won’t add much weight in my opinion.
@eoin – The attack in California was an Islamist attack – not gun crime in any normal sense.
Have bought the senate, more accurately
@dude true but with all legally bought firearm
@dude was every ira attack in Britain during troubles an Irish republican attack or just plain terrorism?
I am strongly in favour of gun control but I honesty don’t think it’s ever going to happen. Obama or any other president can promise all the reform they want but the gun lobby is too strong. The majority of Americans oppose gun control apart from a few of the liberal north-east states and some cities such as New York and Chicago. Gun ownership is engrained into the American mindset; many see guns as a way of defending themselves if the government tries to interfere too much in their lives. The bottom line is I can’t ever see Americans giving up their guns.
it’s a step in the right direction
It will never happen.
.
Have tried to explain to somebody from the east end of Belfast that English royalty is bullshit?
Run like hell.
No a word about big pharma and the effects on US society…Check out Louis Theroux US and meds…yes guns can be dangerous,but the hidden story is the psychological minds of the people carrying out these massacres…
“No a word about big pharma and the effects on US society…Check out Louis Theroux US and meds…yes guns can be dangerous,but the hidden story is the psychological minds of the people carrying out these massacres…”
That’s a load of hogwash!
If you care to look at the stats – it would be less than a quarter that have been diagnosed with a mental illness .
Meds bad ,blah,blah,blah!
@Sean – this recent attack was Islamic jihad. Nothing to do with pharmaceuticals – although you are right in that they do have a role to play in many suicides and murders worldwide.
Here come the ‘Breggin/Healy ‘ links
Yes Rosie it’s true…now go take your meds and watch you’re celebrity big brother and xfactor…..Good girl…
Sorry to burst your bubble…but you asked for if with a photo like that… http://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/
As I predicted :)
Not sorry to burst your anti-psychotic bad bubble
I don’t see anything there…lol…you just proofed you are an idiot
*proved* -Poor pet!
Go back on your rocket ship of junk science,lad :)
For a brief but lethal piercing of the NYT Editorial, see the following.
http://www.nationalreview.com/NYT-Epic-Gun-Fail
Gun murders may be going down, but mass gun shootings (where four or more people are killed or injured) are still going up, both in terms of the number of incidents and the number of people killed or injured – there’s now an average of one per day (www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence).
Maybe the NYT should have had editorials about all these other issues, but just maybe the fact that no-one seems to be prepared to do anything about mass gun incidents justifies it in this instance.
As for Pearl Harbor, I’m pretty sure ALL Americans recognised that was wrong, and agreed that some response was called for.
War mongering lunatics. They will never give up their guns. They think they keep them safe from isis, al Quieda, communists, refugees, muslims, the Us Gov , etc
Fair play to them…that’s why we are utter slaves in Ireland…no power…government walks all over us…they can do as they wish…US government fears their people…especially down south
By the way the strict good laws that Obama wishes to introduce are already in place in New York and Chicago…if you check statistics you will realise that Chicago has now gun related murders thanks any other city in US…and they have strict gun laws…in Ireland we have strict gun laws…and we never heard of any shootings do we??? Oops :)
Chicago has more gun related related homicides than any other city in US
Could one of the reasons be ,that one can go to the very next state to purchase their toys :)
The problem is that there are already loads of guns in circulation in the US. Restricting sales of new guns isn’t going to stop someone with an agenda to kill because they can buy guns that are already out there on the black market.
Otherwise you can also try to take guns out of circulation if you want EG under a buy back /amnesty /decree but the people most likely to use them wont be the ones handing them over.
No easy solution at this point.
Gun laws have been getting ever tighter in cities like Chicago yet their have been an escalating muster rate and an ever increasing gang/random shootings. Gun prohibitions take them from lawful citizens and give the government more control over lawful citizens. Criminals, terrorists, and crazies can always buy black market weapons, they are not hard to get. Are you really that daft to believe increasing gun control laws is going to help; all this does is make inept politicians look like they are doing something because they cannot admit the roots and deal with a corrupt society.
Operation mocking bird comes to mind…
Problem – Reaction – Solution.
Guns are part of American culture.
If there is a mass shooting or a terrorist attack, Americans run out and buy more guns.
Mention a gun ban, they’ll run out and buy more guns.
Anybody talking about removing guns in America is wasting their breath.
Jim Jeffers – gun control. Very funny and true
https://youtu.be/0rR9IaXH1M0
Take the guns. Leave the maniacs.
have your say