New York Times - Front Page Editorial

Dame--I believe it is owned by a Jewish family. I think the climate toward stiffer gun control laws is on a lot of people's minds. I know for me, I have been giving it some thought, even with being a gun owner. However, this is one of those things that we have to tread softly on, so as not to violate anyone's constitutional rights. I know that we have all heard that along with owning a gun comes responsibilities, but the people that are using them for unlawful acts are not concerned about responsibilities. They buy guns for one intended purpose. I guess that we will just have to wait and see where we go from here, but I also think it will be a huge topic during the presidential campaign.
 
I agree Warri......here is the editorial..



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html
End the Gun Epidemic in America
​It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

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.

... What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?
 
Not sure why all this constant fear of weapons in the US driven by some out of country folks that have their own problems at home. This is a US problem and it will be taken care of the proper US way of changing our laws. I keep asking why the Swiss don't get attacked as the US is but never get any real answers. They all get weapons issued to them, they carry weapons with them on transport and into restaurants. To me that is fine and should be fie in the US as well.

Today we, the US country, is catching all kinds of nasty talk for a gun rampage run by some that think we should all be driven by some foreign countries willingness to kill any and all for a distorted religion belief the US does not support at all.

Can there be some more ways to control the owning or using of guns in the US? Yes, and there will be some changes made in time as more is learned. Nothing should happen every time some outrageous gun event happens as this one did. These folks used the gun rules to their advantage. But their were explosives, not under popular gun rules at all. They use surprise to entrap and kill many folks. War like activity on peaceful people. None of that is preventable when trying to defend from those willing to lie and cheat in order to kill folks. Remember in a peaceful foot race that some folks decided to try to blow a bunch of innocent folks up. There is no end to all the hate and crime of some folks, no matter how strong some think about things.

It is not the guns that is the problem at all. It is the mind set of some folks that is the problem. They will attempt to do what ever is possible in order to make their evil point more obvious.

We do need to be ready to take out these foreign haters and make them live elsewhere. Just need a way to find how they are able to get the knowledge and ability to buy or build explosives.

The scary part is the need to change our Constitution in order to end personal gun ownership and usage. There should be no usage for doing so. They can certainly take those military style weapons and lower their effectiveness or disable them so their would be no automatic shooting by holding the trigger back. Reduce them to just shooting, single shot, when the trigger is pulled.

Plenty the US can do to lower the gun killing without just going into panic when ever some out of country mentality or criminal mind sets takes over and causes these killing events.

Where were those legally owned, self defense, guns during this nasty raid. Obviously none were carried to that party. Only those purchased for the killing event. Maybe more should be carried as self defense weapons and used if necessary.

I don't own a gun but it seems more likely that all should carry for self defense.
 
Jackie22 said:
I agree Warri......here is the editorial..



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html
End the Gun Epidemic in America
​It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

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.

Click to expand...

First off I applaud the NY Times for the editorial, though it won't do a bit of good beyond continuing the debate over gun laws for a few days more. The sentence above struck me as being most important, as we yet again have this national debate. Until enough citizens in this country rise up and vote out of office those who show zero interest in sensible changes to our gun laws, this national nightmare will go on and on. As one commenter noted on the NY Times website, "When Congress failed to act following the shooting and killing of children and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School, I lost all hope that those who favor unfettered access to guns and those who support reasonable controls would somehow find common ground. Americans are too deeply divided over guns to find common ground; it's not going to happen. Ever."
Sadly, I now share this rather dim view of reality.
 
Last edited:
oldman said:
.....I also think it will be a huge topic during the presidential campaign.
Click to expand...

It may be an issue but I doubt it will be huge. The Republicans may not push gun rights too hard, because it would be a sensitive topic right now. If the Democrats make it a big issue, they will probably only lose votes. The election usually comes down to how the independents go. And what matters with those folks is the climate a month or two just before the election.

This is just my guess based on the last few elections.
 
oldman said:
Grasp the what? Nettle must be Aussie talk for 'what?'
Click to expand...

This is what I thought when the word nettle was mentioned. We had them in Ohio when I was a kid.

nettle

[net-l]

noun

1. any plant of the genus Urtica, covered with stinging hairs.

Compare nettle family.

2. any of various allied or similar plants.

verb (used with object), nettled, nettling.

3. to irritate, annoy, or provoke.

4. to sting as a nettle does.

Idioms

5. grasp the nettle, Australian. to undertake or tackle an unpleasant task.
 
Bobw235 said:
First off I applaud the NY Times for the editorial, though it won't do a bit of good beyond continuing the debate over gun laws for a few days more. The sentence above struck me as being most important, as we yet again have this national debate. Until enough citizens in this country rise up and vote out of office those who show zero interest in sensible changes to our gun laws, this national nightmare will go on and on. As one commenter noted on the NY Times website, "When Congress failed to act following the shooting and killing of children and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School, I lost all hope that those who favor unfettered access to guns and those who support reasonable controls would somehow find common ground. Americans are too deeply divided over guns to find common ground; it's not going to happen. Ever."
Sadly, I now shrare this rather dim view of reality.
Click to expand...

The title basically/beginning is a perfect example why the anti gun rage machine hasn't been able to get their way.

Some can and/or will interpret the words 'disgrace' or 'moral outrage' as them being labeled a disgrace or immoral in a backdoor fashion. Not the only media or issue to word stories & editorials like that either. And by implying lobbying is the only reason guns & ownership currently exists it also implies that public is following the whims of an organization like sheep in a herd.

When the anti gun rage machine flares up they also wind up insulting the public especially those who never even thought of using their gun in crime or negligently. Again not the only issue to suffer this effect but it is that strategically constructed kind of verbage used to imply, shame, guilt, scare or manipulate the public and politicians to follow their lead. Marketers have used this strategy for centuries. Some buy some don't. Either decision does necessarily reflect on the quality of the product.
 
What I find particularly unsettling is the absolute unwillingness to even have a civil discussion about sensible gun control, or even begin government sponsored research on the subject. I've said this before, folks have a right to own a gun. I don't think that's ever going to change. But shouldn't there at least be a discussion about the kinds of weapons that one can own and the background checks/licensing that one must undergo in order to possess something that can easily kill lots of people in under 30 seconds?

Lots of folks will quickly dismiss a NY Times editorial as just another "liberal" voice trying to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens, but I think we have to look beyond that. We have to start looking inward and examine why this country has such a culture of violence and mass murder that seemingly doesn't exist in other civilized countries. We must ask ourselves why nothing EVER gets done when it's becoming increasingly common to read about yet another mass shooting in this country. Are we ever going to prevent all such tragedies? Probably not, but as long as there's such a divide in this country when it comes to even having a discussion about making it more difficult to possess a weapon meant to kill lots of folks in a short period of time, nothing will ever change.

You know when things will start to change? When the families of people in the House and Senate start being counted amongst the dead bodies in the next mass shooting. God forbid it ever happens, but if a school full of dead children in Newtown, CT didn't do it, and one of their own (Gabby Giffords) didn't do it, what will???? How tragic must the next mass shooting be to get folks to wake the F*&% up and realize that we have a serious problem with gun violence in this country that goes way beyond the latest tradgedy-du-jour?

I'm sick of it.
 
Call your Representative and Senator and voice your opinion. They are the only ones who will attempt to get a good conversation going. None of these newspapers or forums are able to get our Congress to work on this problem. I think that some of these weapons should be disabled, as I spoke of before recently on this forum. We really do not need to have full functioning machine guns available in individual hands. Until the Second Amendment is altered the freedom too own guns is protected for all. But under the gun ownership rules their should be certain things like full automatic denied and only single shot or finger pull repeating action allowed.

I think full automatic should be restricted to military and policing units of all levels of work.
 
oldman said:
Grasp the what? Nettle must be Aussie talk for 'what?'
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought the meaning was well known

grasp the nettle (British & Australian)to take action immediately in order to deal with an unpleasant situation
Usage notes: A nettle is a plant which can sting if you touch it.

I've been putting off tackling the problem for too long and I think it's time to grasp the nettle.
 
Bobw235 said:
What I find particularly unsettling is the absolute unwillingness to even have a civil discussion about sensible gun control, or even begin government sponsored research on the subject. I've said this before, folks have a right to own a gun. I don't think that's ever going to change. But shouldn't there at least be a discussion about the kinds of weapons that one can own and the background checks/licensing that one must undergo in order to possess something that can easily kill lots of people in under 30 seconds?

Lots of folks will quickly dismiss a NY Times editorial as just another "liberal" voice trying to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens, but I think we have to look beyond that. We have to start looking inward and examine why this country has such a culture of violence and mass murder that seemingly doesn't exist in other civilized countries. We must ask ourselves why nothing EVER gets done when it's becoming increasingly common to read about yet another mass shooting in this country. Are we ever going to prevent all such tragedies? Probably not, but as long as there's such a divide in this country when it comes to even having a discussion about making it more difficult to possess a weapon meant to kill lots of folks in a short period of time, nothing will ever change.

You know when things will start to change? When the families of people in the House and Senate start being counted amongst the dead bodies in the next mass shooting. God forbid it ever happens, but if a school full of dead children in Newtown, CT didn't do it, and one of their own (Gabby Giffords) didn't do it, what will???? How tragic must the next mass shooting be to get folks to wake the F*&% up and realize that we have a serious problem with gun violence in this country that goes way beyond the latest tradgedy-du-jour?

I'm sick of it.
Click to expand...
Why questions are the most important of all. After that comes the how questions.
 
Warrigal said:
Sorry, I thought the meaning was well known

grasp the nettle (British & Australian)to take action immediately in order to deal with an unpleasant situation
Usage notes: A nettle is a plant which can sting if you touch it.

I've been putting off tackling the problem for too long and I think it's time to grasp the nettle.
Click to expand...

I published 4 hours earlier and it said it was a Australian comment. Not heard much at all in the US and elsewhere.
 
Nettles and Full-Automatic

The National Firearms Act of 1934 effectively removed full-automatic firearms from unrestricted general public ownership. All full-automatic weapons were required to registered in a Federal Registry. The Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986 further restricted full-automatic weapons by prohibiting manufacture of new weapons; that little "protective piece" became known as the "Hughes Amendment", an addition by a Congressman which was included at the very end of discussion period. Interestingly, historically, no firearm included in the 1934-established registry has ever been used in a crime.

As kids while vacationing in Michigan, we often cut short twigs of Nettle from the bushes and swatted the unsuspecting across their bare arms, producing angry cries of pain and often nasty-looking welts. imp
 
Not an editorial but an opinion piece by one of our America watchers, John Barron.

Thoughts and prayers: The sad truth about the response to the San Bernardino shooting

OpinionThe Drum
By John Barron
Updated Fri at 1:01pmFri 4 Dec 2015



What is remarkable is mass shootings in the United States are no longer truly shocking. Sadly, they have become as commonplace as the platitudes rolled out by the politicians who aren't acting on gun control, writes John Barron.

In April 1999, when two teenagers celebrated Hitler's birthday by donning ski masks and trench coats and opening fire on their classmates killing 12 students and one teacher at the Columbine High School in Denver Colorado, the headline in the New York Daily News was simply: HORRIFIC.

Today, after two 20-somethings with as yet unknown motives, opened fire on a workplace end-of-year party in San Bernardino, California, The Daily News headline has gone from shock to anger. Today it reads: GOD ISN'T FIXING THIS.

The headline is a response to the kind of platitudes from politicians we've come to expect at such moments. Senior Republican politicians, all of whom oppose stricter gun controls, tweeted very similar messages yesterday.

See link for Twitter posts: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-04/barron-the-sad-truth-of-the-san-bernardino-shooting/7001374

What is remarkable is, unlike 1999, mass shootings in the United States are no longer truly shocking. They have become commonplace. Shootings involving four or more dead or wounded have literally become a daily occurrence - already more than 350 in 2015 according to the shooting tracker website.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution states:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
​
The result of that "right" is there are an estimated 110 million rifles in the United States, 86 million shotguns and 114 million handguns. Yet the number of American households who have guns has fallen from 50 per cent in the late 1970s to less than a third today.

The other result of that "right" is more than 30,000 shooting deaths in America every year.

Mass shootings grab headlines, but they are just a small part of the problem.


President Barack Obama, heading into his final year in office, is no longer setting his sights very high, saying today he want to see "what we can do to make sure that when individuals decide that they want to do somebody harm, we're making it a little harder for them to do it ... because right now, it's just too easy."

But even those very measured words will turn in some ears into "OBAMA WANTS TO TAKE YOUR GUN!"

What will be interesting to see in the days and weeks ahead is if the San Bernardino shooting is defined as an act of terrorism - rather than the act of a zealot, disaffected teen or lunatic - will we finally see some movement from lawmakers?

Surely even gun-rights Republicans and the National Rifle Association would want to stop Jihadi's getting hold of guns?

President Obama told CBS news yesterday that is one loophole he'd like to close
.
We have a no fly list where people can't get on planes but those same people who we don't allow to fly could go into a store right now in the United States and buy a firearm and there's nothing that we can do to stop them. That's a law that needs to be changed.
​
The majority of Americans say they want stricter gun controls - about 55 per cent, according to Gallup. But that's down from 78 per cent in 1990.
Will it happen? I don't know.

The shooting of 12 movie-goers in Aurora Colorado in July 2012 didn't see any national action on gun control.
The deaths of 20 children and six of their teachers at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012 didn't prod politicians into action either.
Nine people shot during a bible study at a church in Charleston, South Carolina this June? Well, what can you do?

Thoughts and prayers.


John Barron is an ABC journalist, host of Planet America, and research associate at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney.
Click to expand...

Two things jumped out at me.
One, the number of guns in private hands is huge and growing but the number of people owning them is declining?
And two, the majority of Americans are in favour of stricter gun controls.

Is this a case of the minority imposing its will on the majority?
 
AZ Jim said:
Simple question to all gun owners. Why do you need an AR 15 or any similar weapon? Why do you need large capacity clips?View attachment 24424
Click to expand...
Jim, it is just a matter of matching up one's firearm needs with the right firearm. AR-15s are not made for metropolitan usage. Most town folks carry pistols with proper licensing. The ARs are real popular in the country around our ranch but when you consider that we have 400 pound wild hogs, javelinas, cougars, coyotes, bob cats, etc. to contend with you can understand. Regarding the large clips, have you ever tried to hit a moving target with a rifle as the critter is rapidly headed directly for you? It is much harder than old timey Western movies would indicate. Other types of carbine style rifles of the 223 persuasion are very popular as well. As Captain Woodrow F. Call said, "It is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."
 
Agman said:
AZ Jim said:
Simple question to all gun owners. Why do you need an AR 15 or any similar weapon? Why do you need large capacity clips?View attachment 24424[/QUOTE
Jim, it is just a matter of matching up one's firearm needs with the right firearm. AR-15s are not made for metropolitan usage. Most town folks carry pistols with proper licensing. The ARs are real popular in the country around our ranch but when you consider that we have 400 pound wild hogs, javelinas, cougars, coyotes, bob cats, etc. to contend with you can understand. Regarding the large clips, have you ever tried to hit a moving target with a rifle as the critter is rapidly headed directly for you? It is much harder than old timey Western movies would indicate. Other types of carbine style rifles of the 223 persuasion are very popular as well. As Captain Woodrow F. Call said, "It is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."
Click to expand...

No personal offense intended REALLY but Bullshit!!! Folks in the country and cities as well were able to survive without that kind of weapon for centuries. Wild hogs, bears, wolves all can be put down with conventional rifles and shotguns. What do you suppose they used 30 or even less years ago when those COMBAT style weapons weren't available? If a person is in a situation where he cannot hit a Javelina or wild hog with less than 15 rounds he should climb a tree and sell his weapon when he was able to come down. Anyone who owns a firearm should learn to hit his target or stay home.
Click to expand...
 
Winchester came out with the Model 94 carbine in 30 caliber 100 years ago and the purpose for which the Model 94 was manufactured is very similar to the purpose of more modern carbines like the ARs. Your post asked all gun owners to respond and what I gave you is our particularly unique requirements for a long gun here in the woods. You asked the question and I told you the answer. It appears that we have a difference of opinion but I would still like to invite you to accompany us on our next hog hunt so that you can teach me how to shoot. Based on your language, it appears that your ego has outweighed your trigger finger.
 
I am not pro gun Agman, but this "round" goes to you! I applaud both your debating skills, and your sense of humour. Lolol. Don't want to go piggy hunting with you though. However there are a few people I might like to use as target practice now and then.(joking.)
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top