The New York Times…Desperate or Confused?

With all the issues facing our country today, the New York Times comes out of hibernation from being silent for the past 100 years to talk about gun control? Either they are desperate for readership or just want to ride the tide of panic in our country. Either way, we deserve better.

The article is the first time in nearly 100 years that the NY Times has used the front page to share an opinion editorial. This one was by The Editorial Board, “End the Gun Epidemic in America.” While I certainly don’t agree with the use of guns by criminals, terrorists, or other derelicts in our society, I do believe in citizens being able to protect themselves…just like our founding fathers did when they created the 2nd Amendment.

Violence, regardless of how it happens, should never be encouraged or condoned…regardless of the how it happens or what “weapon” is used. Unfortunately, it happens from too many sources, including knives, fists, cars, and yes, even firearms. But violence is not going to be eradicated and regardless of what we do to take away the “weapon” there will still be those who want to commit violent crimes. We can’t take away all the “tools” that cause violent activity and deaths. It would not only be impossible, it would be ludicrous to believe we could. There is always someone out there willing to create a new tool of violence in our society.

While most don’t like to talk about the other sources, the numbers weigh heavily in favor of just about anything causing more violence than firearms. The issue is we can’t outlaw these tools but many think we can outlaw firearms. No one talks about getting rid of cars, knives, axes, or other tools…let alone people’s own hands. They aren’t easy…firearms are an easy target.

But one other factor goes along with the ridiculousness of the New York Times opinion article. What do we do when we can’t rely on our police and other government officials to protect us? They are not prepared or equipped to be everywhere, so violence can’t be controlled by the government. This is the primary reason the 2nd Amendment was added…and being second wasn’t by accident. We realized then, as we do today, that it is up to the citizens of our country to protect ourselves when the government isn’t capable.

So my other question to the New York Times would be, “How do you propose we protect our citizens when the government can’t?” If there is a better solution that citizens protecting citizens, I am all ears and very anxious to hear this solution. But until there is, citizens still need to protect citizens. How short sighted it is for one of the largest, but rapidly declining, news sources in the country to take such a narrow stance. They either must be desperate for readership or possibly just confused about reality. Either way, I’m not surprised.

Leave a reply