What is your opinion on the NYT Editorial Opinion piece - "End the Gun Epidemic in America"?

2015-12-05T08:29:37-05:00

More specifically (especially for those that do not read articles connected via links), your opinion about the next to last paragraph - "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."?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america/ar-AAg2dhB?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

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.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Dec 5 at 2015 8:52 AM

2015-12-05T08:52:42-05:00

I have a number of thoughts.

1) It's an editorial piece, using the Power of the Press, which is designed as a Safeguard of the People against the Government, to push a political agenda. This is part of the purpose of the Press. I don't particularly like the message, but this is exactly what they are there for. To bring attention to issues.

2) The article was essentially "unsigned" (NYT Editorial Staff). It may as well of said "Anonymous." In my view, that is "blame sharing" and it should have been signed by the Editor in Chief under his name. That's why he gets paid the big bucks, and makes the decisions. It's not that he wrote it, it's that he agrees with the contents, and is taking responsibility for it.

3) The Media, and most "collective" organizations have leaned very heavily towards the Progressive Movement for a long time. A NY based Press organization, is going to lean Progressive. The tone doesn't surprise me one bit. They have admitted to leaning "Left" on Civil Liberty issues (which 2a is).

4) They're wrong. I really don't need to expand much on this. Because it's simple. They are choosing to exercise every other Protection of the Constitution individually, except one. They think the "uninformed masses" need to be controlled, and they need to be the ones to control us. Remember, the Press doesn't work for us. They view us as a Product which they sell to others.

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Dec 5 at 2015 8:25 PM

2015-12-05T20:25:19-05:00

Maybe my question should have been "What is their definition of "certain kinds of ammunition"?" Would that include standard military ball FMJ ammunition? Even if I was wearing any kind of armor, I would definitely would not like to get shot with 30-06 military ammo shot from either an M1 Garand or an M1903 rifle.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Dec 5 at 2015 9:16 PM

2015-12-05T21:16:02-05:00

Just a foot in the door to ban all civilian gun ownership. When the ban "assault rifles" it will accomplish nothing. Therefore they will need to bolt action hunting rifles. When the accomplishes nothing next will come single shot rifles and all .22s. Of course that also will accomplish nothing so they will have to ban shotguns. Then semi-auto pistols, then revolvers, etc. Ultimately they will have confiscated all guns from honest citizens and criminals and terrorist will still have all that they want. You can only disarm people who obey laws.

Response by SGM Joseph Wolfe made Dec 10 at 2015 6:41 PM

2015-12-10T18:41:45-05:00

Ownership of these types of weapons is not the issue, controlling those who own them is. I am in support of more stringent background checks for them, but not outlawing the weapons themselves. Many people are missing the big picture here because more people own weapons that never do anything wrong with them, than those that do. We will never get weapons out of the hand of those who intend to do wrong because they will always be able to find them through illegal means. In my opinion tougher punishment for those who break the law with firearms is the answer. If people knew that they were going to go to jail for fifty years for any felony they commit involving a weapon, or the death penalty was imposed for any convicted murder they committed, they will think twice. Punishing the masses by not allowing them to owns weapons is wrong answer. Read the following facts from a Gun facts website.
A survey of felons revealed the following:
• 74% of felons agreed that, “one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime.”
• 57% of felons polled agreed, “criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”
Not to mention the fact that "90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type." (http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/).
In conclusion, I say "attack the problem at the source, the violators; not the law-abiding citizens.

Joe Wolfe

Nothing found for Gun Control Myths Crime And Guns )

Most of the charts and graphs on the Gun Facts web site have larger versions. Just click on the chart and the larger version will pop-up in a new window or tab. Share those big charts on Facebook, Twitter and other social sites.