The NY Times Editorial Board, safely ensconced in their workplace with armed security, is Very Upset over the way people have engaged post-Oregon shooting (but not enough to actually offer condolences)
The Political Ritual After Mass Shootings
The Republican presidential candidates were quick to offer sympathy but little else to the nation, to the grieving families and to the terrified town where the latest in American gun carnage took 10 lives on Thursday at an Oregon community college.
The headline makes it seem as if there’s a problem with the typical politicization of the issue, and the Times joins in as they take shots at Trump and other Republicans, before getting to Obama
The contrast could not be greater between the bromide-driven slate of Republican candidates promising thoughts and prayers after “this senseless tragedy†and President Obama in his understandable fury and near despair over the political cowering to the gun industry and its lobbyists. Mass shootings have become an unsurprising part of American life, with lame public rituals in which politicians express grief and then retreat quickly into denial about this scourge.
One thing the NYTEB fails to do, much like Obama and the other Dems commenting, is offer any solutions
Modern high-powered weapons, adapted from war and unscrupulously marketed on the home front, have unfortunately provided the means for a shooter to act out his anger and despair in a matter of minutes. The state-sponsored citizens report on the gun massacre of 20 schoolchildren and six workers in Newtown, Conn., in 2012 concluded there is “no legitimate place in the civilian population†for fast-firing rifles and large-capacity magazines that were invented for the military but have flooded the American marketplace.
As I wrote in the comments at the Editorial,
So, what policies does the NY Times Editorial Board suggest?
“Fast firing rifles”? They really fire no faster than ones from WWI. One pull of the trigger, one shot. Automatic weapons are illegal.
“Large-capacity magazines”? If there’s no one to stop a shooter, it doesn’t matter if the mag is 7 or 15. It takes seconds to reload.
Easy access? The majority of weapons are purchased at a federally licensed firearms dealer.
Please, tell us what would stop any of these tragedies? Please tell us what will stop the constant shootings and murders in cities like Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Newark, Camden, St. Louis, etc, which already have massive gun control laws.”
The first semi-automatic rifle was invented in 1885. The first semi-auto pistol in 1892. The vast majority of legal gun owners will never use any of their firearms for a crime. For all the thundering anger, what policies would stop these events? Murder and attempted murder are illegal. Yet, people still do it.
Other than repealing the 2nd Amendment and full confiscation, what policies can the anti-gunnites offer that would stop this from happening?
And why don’t they seem to care about all the Black on Black shootings/murders in liberal cities such as Chicago, Detroit, Camden, Baltimore, St. Louis, etc, which all have strict gun control policies?
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Although that seems like that would prevent mass shootings, it is entirely false as there are many countries that don’t have a constitutional protection on self defense use of firearms and in many cases have full confiscation, yet they still experience mass shootings.
• On July 22, 2011, a total of 80 people were killed in Norway when Anders Behring Breivik, a political extremist, bombed a government building in Oslo and then went on a shooting rampage on the island of Utoya, just outside the city.
• On March 11, 2009, in Winnenden, Germany, a teenage gunman killed 15 people. The majority of the victims were children and teachers killed when the shooter opened fire in three classrooms in a local secondary school. The gunman shot two other people before killing himself after being cornered by the local police.
• On Sept. 23, 2008, in Kuahajoki, Finland, a gunman shot 10 people to death after opening fire on a classroom in the Kuahajoki School of Hospitality. After killing the students, the shooter burned the victims’ bodies.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/
Like you said before, you can make murder illegal and it will still occur. The reality we need to consider is that despite the fact that we have more guns per capita in the USA than anywhere else in the world, we have yet to see our country in the last 200 years become the madmax thunder dome that all the world elitists have warned us about throughout history and has yet to be a reality.
In fact the protection of the right to self defense using firearms was not invented in the USA. Here is a great part from a website on some history behind the 2nd amendment.
In an article he signed E.A., Samuel Adams published perhaps the most remarkable analysis of the right to keep and bear arms in the pre-Revolutionary era. He recalled the absolute English monarchs, with their doctrines of non-resistance and divine right, and traced the reigns of “a race of kings, bigoted to the greatest degree to the doctrines of slavery and regardless of the natural, inherent, divinely hereditary and indefeasible rights of their subjects.”[49] Quoting freely from Sir William Blackstone, Adams assessed the results of the Glorious Revolution of 1689:
At the revolution, the British constitution was again restor’d to its original principles, declared in the bill of rights; which was afterwards pass’d into a law, and stands as a bulwark to the natural rights of subjects. “To vindicate these rights, says Mr. Blackstone, when actually violated or attack’d, the subjects of England are entitled first to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law–next to the right of petitioning the King and parliament for redress of grievances–and lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” These he calls “auxiliary subordinate rights, which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights of personal security, personal liberty and private property”: And that of having arms for their defense he tells us is “a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”–How little do those persons attend to the rights of the constitution, if they know anything about them, who find fault with a late vote of this town, calling upon the inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defence at any time; but more especially, when they had reason to fear, there would be a necessity of the means of self preservation against the violence of oppression.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/rev-hal.html
And if for some reason you think people are just blood thirsty savages and thank goodness we have government or the world would become a violent and bloody mess, check out this information regarding the psychology of killing.
Most sane humans, if given the choice, will not kill their fellow man and are extremely reluctant to do so, despite what holly wood would like you to believe. When they are forced to do so, many can experience a great deal of psychological trauma. http://www.milsf.com/psychology-of-killing/
shooter was a self described right wing republican. Maybe we should first try just taking their guns
As far as comparisons with other developed countries, yes shootings DO happen, but much rarer than in the USA
it
Left wing vegan hippies choose not to own things designed to kill other human beings
Lefties keep preaching hate, then when some nut acts on it the msm can’t understand why they do it. You keep demonizing whites, Christians and conservatives this is what you get.
By the way johnny, that aluminum fedora you’re wearing is stunning.
[…] William Teach on The Pirate’s Cove: NY Times Editorial Board Bemoans The Typical Political Ritual After Shootings, Joins In […]