New York Times, in rare front-page editorial, urges gun control

The editorial lashes out at politicians and calls for certain weapons to be outlawed for private citizens


Afp December 05, 2015
PHOTO: REUTERS

WASHINGTON: The New York Times has published an editorial on its front page for the first time since 1920, using the rare, prominent placement to urge gun control in the wake of the latest mass shooting in the United States.

Titled "End the Gun Epidemic in America," it lashes out at politicians and calls for certain types of weapons and ammunition to be outlawed for private citizens.

'GunTV' to sell firearms to US viewers

"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," reads the editorial.

PHOTO: TWITTER

Its publication late Friday online and on page A1 of Saturday's print copy of the prestigious newspaper, comes just days after a couple went on a gun rampage in California, killing 14 people and wounding 21 others.

The carnage represents the deadliest mass shooting in the United States since a 2012 Connecticut school massacre and is being investigated as an "act of terrorism," according to the FBI.

The Times said it was "right and proper" for authorities to probe whether the killers were connected to international terrorism.

But, it added, "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."

US arms makers strain to meet demand as Mideast conflicts rage

The paper goes on to say that the United States, in contrast to other countries affected by gun violence, was not even trying to remedy the situation.

"Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs," it said.

"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."

Germany arrests man who may have sold guns to Paris attackers

In particular, it said, certain types of weapons, including the slightly modified combat rifles used in the California attack, in addition to certain kinds of ammunition, "must be outlawed for civilian ownership."

In a statement, the paper's publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr said the reason for running the editorial on the front page was to "to deliver a strong and visible statement of frustration and anguish about our country's inability to come to terms with the scourge of guns."

British police still shun guns despite Paris attacks

"Even in this digital age, the front page remains an incredibly strong and powerful way to surface issues that demand attention," Sulzberger said.

"And, what issue is more important than our nation's failure to protect its citizens?"

COMMENTS (1)

Gene Ralno | 8 years ago | Reply Epidemic? There is no epidemic. Fact is mass shootings aren't becoming more common. Their numbers have remained relatively flat for a couple of decades. And mass shootings are a tiny share of all shootings even though they’re heavily publicized by leftist media. FBI data reveals that less than one percent of homicide victims in 2010 were killed in incidents where four or more people died. A 2013 Congressional Research Service report identified 78 mass shootings over the past 30 years between 1983 and 2012, which claimed 547 lives. Averaged over that period, the U.S. suffered 2.6 per year with 18.2 lives lost. For context, 11,068 people died in gun homicides in 2011 alone. And during this relative calm, the murder rate has declined by more than half. Your odds of being murdered now are only 47 ten-thousandths of a percent (.000047) and your chances of being murdered in a mass shooting are much smaller than that.
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ